From The Archives -- Candidate Speech Series: Barack Obama
[Program Note: While I'm on vacation, I thought it would be fun to jump back about four years here. Because the 2012 presidential campaign is not going to be very interesting on the Democratic side, we're going to take a look back at when it was a real race, last time around. For the next eight days, we will be repeating our "Campaign Speech Series" from 2007, when we printed the full text of a speech given by every Democratic candidate. You can read the original introduction to this series to see the details of how it was put together, if you're interested. While we realize that these speeches are not exactly relevant to where we stand today, we still thought it'd be worthwhile to run them while we're on hiatus here. Regular columns are currently scheduled to return June 9th.]
Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
A Change We Can Believe In
Spartanburg, South Carolina
11/3/07
One year from now, you will have the chance to walk into a voting booth, pull back the curtain, and choose the next President of the United States.
Here's the good news -- for the first time in a long time, the name George Bush will not appear on the ballot. The name Dick Cheney will not appear on the ballot. The era of Scooter Libby justice, and Brownie incompetence, and the Karl Rove politics of fear and cynicism will be over.
But the question you will have to ask yourselves when you pick up your ballot a year from today is, "What next?" How do we repair the enormous damage of these dismal years and recapture that sense of common purpose that has seen America through our toughest times?
I'm running for President because I believe we find ourselves in a moment of great challenge and great promise -- a moment that comes along once in a generation.
It's a moment of challenge because America is less safe and less respected than at any time in recent history. We are more dependent on oil from dictators and closer to the day when climate change becomes a climate catastrophe.
In the midst of great prosperity, families all across this country feel further from the American Dream. You know this from your own lives. Most Americans are working harder for less and paying more for health care and college than ever before. It's harder to save. Harder to retire. And the policies of the last seven years have added to that unfairness.
George Bush said whatever the politics of the moment required in order to get elected in 2000. And those seven years of broken promises have left the American people with less trust in their leaders and less faith in their government than they have in years.
We were promised compassion and conservatism but we got Katrina and wiretaps.
We were promised a uniter, but we got a divider who couldn't even lead the half of the country who voted for him.
We were promised a kinder, gentler Washington but got a town that's more bitter, secretive, and corrupt than ever before. And the only mission ever accomplished was using fear and falsehoods to take us to a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
This catastrophic failure of leadership has led us to a moment where it's not just Democrats who are listening to what we have to say, but Independents and Republicans who have never been more disillusioned with what the state of our leadership in Washington has done to this country.
That's why this is also a moment of great promise. It's a chance to turn the page by offering the American people a fundamentally different choice in 2008 -- not just in the policies we offer, but in the kind of leadership we offer. It's a chance to come together and finally solve the challenges that were made worse by George Bush, but existed long before he took office -- challenges like health care and energy and education that we haven't met for decades because of a political system in Washington that has failed the American people.
And that's what this debate in our party right now is all about.
Much has been said about the exchanges between Senator Clinton and myself this week. Now, understand that Hillary Clinton is a colleague and a friend. She's also a skilled politician, and she's run what Washington would call a "textbook" campaign. But the problem is the textbook itself.
It's a textbook that's all about winning elections, but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems. As we saw in the debate last week, it encourages vague, calculated answers to suit the politics of the moment, instead of clear, consistent principles about how you would lead America. It teaches you that you can promise progress for everyday people while striking a bargain with the very special interests who crowd them out.
Now, Senator Clinton is certainly not the only one in Washington to play this game. It's gone on for years, and I understand the reasoning behind it. It's a game that usually gets politicians where they need to go. But I don't believe it gets America where we need to go. When it comes to issues like war and diplomacy; energy and health care, I don't believe we can bring about real change if all we do is change our positions based on what's popular or politically convenient. If we are going to seize this moment of challenge and promise, the American people deserve more when they head to the voting booth in 2008.
I believe that our party has made the most difference in people's lives and the life of this country when we have led not by polls but by principle; not by calculation but by conviction; when we've been able to summon the entire nation to a common purpose -- a higher purpose. That's how Roosevelt led us through war and lifted us from depression. It's how Kennedy called on a new generation to ask what they could do for America. And I am running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States because that's the kind of leadership America needs right now.
I don't pretend to be a perfect man, and I will not be a perfect President. But I am in this race because I believe that if we want to break from the failures of the past and finally make progress as a country, we can't keep telling different people what we think they want to hear -- we have to tell every American what they need to know. We have to be honest about the challenges we face.
When I called for higher fuel standards so we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I didn't say it to some environmental group in California -- I said it in front of automakers in Detroit. When I called for corporate responsibility so that middle-class Americans could get a tax cut, I said it in front of CEOs on Wall Street. And when I was invited to speak out against George Bush's plan to invade Iraq as a Senate candidate five years ago, I didn't listen to those who warned me that it was politically risky position to take, I listened to my gut, and I said loud and clear that this was the wrong war at the wrong time and Congress should stand up and say so.
That's the kind of leadership we need right now. That's why I'm this race. Because I don't think you should settle for a President who's only there for you when it's easy or convenient or popular -- I think you deserve a President who's willing to fight for you every hour of every day for the next four years.
That's the change we can offer in 2008 -- not change as a slogan, but change we can believe in.
One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race -- and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans -- it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008.
When I am President, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break. I won't wait ten years to raise the minimum wage -- I'll raise it to keep pace every single year. And if American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States.
One year from now, we can stop campaigning on the outrage of 47 million uninsured Americans and finally start doing something about it. I reformed health care in Illinois, and I didn't do it alone -- I did it by reaching out to Democrats and Republicans. We took on the insurance industry, and we won. That's how I'll pass a universal health care bill that allows every American to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves and cuts every family's premiums by up to $2500. And mark my words -- I will sign this bill by the end of my first term as President. That's the change we can offer in 2008.
One year from now, we can stop sending our children down corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success. When I am President, we will stop passing bills called No Child Left Behind that leave the money behind and start making real investments in education from cradle to adulthood. That means early childhood education. That means recruiting an army of new teachers, and paying them better, and supporting them more so they're not just teaching to test, but teaching to teach. And it means finally putting a college education within reach of every American. That's the change we can offer in 2008.
One year from now, we can stop sending hundreds of millions of dollars to dictators for their oil while we melt the polar ice caps in the bargain. I will raise our fuel standards, and put a cap on carbon emissions to reduce then 80% by 2050. We'll tell polluters that they have to pay for their pollution, because they don't own the skies, the American people own the skies. And we'll use the money to invest in the clean, renewable fuels that are our future. That's the change we can offer in 2008.
In this election, we have the chance to turn the page on the last six years of being told that the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush Republicans.
When I'm your nominee, my opponent won't be able to say that I was for the war in Iraq before I was against it; or that I supported an extension of the Iraq war into Iran; or that I support the Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to leaders we don't like. And he won't be able to say that I flip-flopped on something as fundamental as whether our nation should use torture. Because we are not a nation that makes excuses for torture, we are a nation that rejects it. That's the change we can offer in 2008.
When I am President, I will end this war in Iraq. I will bring our troops home within sixteen months. I'll finish the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And I will lead the world against the common threats of the 21st century -- nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what Democrats must stand for, and that's what America must stand for. And I'll be a President who finally sends a message to the black, white, and brown faces beyond our shores; from the halls of power to the huts of Africa that says, "You matter to America. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."
America, our moment is now. Now is our chance to turn the page. Now is our chance to write a new chapter.
I am in this race because I don't want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don't want to pit Blue America against Red America, I want to lead a United States of America. I don't want this election to be about the past, because if it's about the future, we all win. If this election is about whether or not to end this war, or pass universal health care, or make more college affordable, it won't just be a Democratic victory; it will be an American victory.
That's the victory this country needs right now. This election and this moment are too important to settle for what we already know. The time has come to reach for what we know is possible.
I am not running for this office to fulfill any long-held plans or because I believe it is somehow owed to me. I never expected to be here, and I always knew the journey would be improbable. I've never been on one that wasn't.
I am running because of what Dr. King called "the fierce urgency of now." I am running because I do believe there's such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost here.
I'm running because I don't want to wake up one morning four years from now, and turn on one of those cable talk shows, and see that Washington is still stuck in the same food fight it's been in for over a decade. I don't want to see that more Americans lost their health care and fell into bankruptcy because we let the insurance industry spend millions to stop us for yet another year. I don't want to see that.
I don't want to see that the oceans rose another few inches and the planet has reached the point of no return because we couldn't find a way to stop ourselves from buying oil from dictators. I don't want to see that.
I don't want to see that we risked more American lives in another misguided war because no one had the judgment to ask the tough questions before we sent our troops to fight. I don't want to see that.
I don't want to see homeless veterans on the street. I don't want to send another generation of children through corridors of shame. I don't want this future for my daughters and I do not accept this future for America. It is time to turn the page.
I run for the presidency for the same reason I drove halfway across the country over two decades ago to bring jobs to the jobless and hope to the hopeless on the streets of Chicago; for the same reason I stood up for justice and equality as a civil rights lawyer; for the same reason I've fought for Illinois families for over a decade. Because I will never forget that the only reason I am standing here today is because someone, somewhere stood up when it wasn't popular, when it was risky; when it was hard. And because that someone stood up, a few more did. And then a few thousand. And then a few million. And together, they changed the world.
That's why I run in this election. I run to give my children and their children the same chances that someone, somewhere gave me. I run so that a year from today, there is a chance that the world will look at America differently, and that America will look at itself differently. And I run to keep the promise of the United States of America alive for all those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for equality and long to believe again.
That is the change that's possible in this election. That is the moment I want to seize as President. And I ask you all to join me in this journey. Thank you.
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
A Change We Can Believe In
'nuff said on THAT.....
Michale......
That means recruiting an army of new teachers, and paying them better, and supporting them more so they're not just teaching to test, but teaching to teach.
i'm personally still waiting on that one...
And he won't be able to say that I flip-flopped on something as fundamental as whether our nation should use torture.
failed. i'm sure michale's glad about that one, and attributes the bin laden raid to it, but nonetheless there it is...
George Bush said whatever the politics of the moment required in order to get elected in 2000. And those seven years of broken promises have left the American people with less trust in their leaders and less faith in their government than they have in years.
and this has changed how?
That's why I'm this race. Because I don't think you should settle for a President who's only there for you when it's easy or convenient or popular -- I think you deserve a President who's willing to fight for you every hour of every day for the next four years.
still waiting...
NYpoet,
Well said...
As I mentioned before, it's amazing to have these side-by-side views of our leaders..
If Obama & Biden were to read these, I would hope they would have the decency to be acutely embarrassed...
Michale.....
Welp, Unemployment is back on it's way up again...
Obama's re-election prospects are looking dimmer and dimmer...
Michale.....
Obama's re-election prospects are looking dimmer and dimmer...
but on the bright side for the president, his most likely opponents are mitt romney and sarah palin.
but on the bright side for the president, his most likely opponents are mitt romney and sarah palin.
But polling puts BOTH within single digits of Obama...
And with a year and a half to go and the economy about 3-5 years away from recovery, it's very possible that, come election time, we might have President Palin... :D
On another note....
CW, those audio ads are brutal.... :(
I dropped a note directly to Ben at Banter, but I guess it was ignored... :(
Michale...
michale,
i shudder to think what a palin presidency might be like, but i must concede that it is a possibility. as mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." perhaps it's something obama can hold over palestinian leadership, though - if they don't want to make a deal with his administration, they ought to consider the likely alternative.
you know you can configure your browser not to run scripts from particular hosts, right?
~joshua
i shudder to think what a palin presidency might be like,
I doubt it could be any worse than what we have had with Obama....
At least with Palin we would have someone who understands and relates to the majority of middle class Americans.
I can't even begin to count how many times Obama has been on the opposite side of the majority of Americans on issues...
perhaps it's something obama can hold over palestinian leadership, though - if they don't want to make a deal with his administration, they ought to consider the likely alternative.
Good one. :D The Palestinians would be petrified of a Palin Administration.
And rightly so..
you know you can configure your browser not to run scripts from particular hosts, right?
"I'm a doctor, not a software programmer!"
-Dr Leonard McCoy
:D
I didn't know that. I'm pretty much a hardware person.
It's like that old joke, "How many software programmers does it take to change a light bulb."
"None. It's a hardware problem".. :D
Do tell....
Michale.....
On another note...
Muslim Group Offends Some Christians With Jesus Advertisements
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/muslim-group-offends-some-christians-jes
One has to wonder if Christians will react to offense the way that Muslims do or if the Hysterical Left will jump to the defense of Christians as they jump to the defense of Muslims...
Anyone??? Anyone??? Buehler???
My guess is the answer to both will be, "HELL NO"... :D
Michale.....
I doubt it could be any worse than what we have had with Obama....
things can always get worse.
as disappointed as i am in the president and his policies, how could anyone with half a brain seriously think palin would do better? have you watched her interviews? it's genuinely shocking how little she knows or understands. i'd sooner have palpatine as president than allow someone as witless as palin to be in charge of my country.
the easiest blocking tool i know of is NoScript, which is available as a plug-in to mozilla's firefox browser.
http://noscript.net
as disappointed as i am in the president and his policies, how could anyone with half a brain seriously think palin would do better? have you watched her interviews? it's genuinely shocking how little she knows or understands. i'd sooner have palpatine as president than allow someone as witless as palin to be in charge of my country.
The measure of a great leader is not knowing everything, but rather to surround yourself with competent and capable people...
One only has to look at Obama to realize that intelligence does not a great leader make.
Palin is more in tune with the majority of Americans...
This is undeniable...
Thanx for the hint on the NoScript.. Once I survive the weekend, I'll check into it.
But it's bed time now. :D
Michale
One only has to look at Obama to realize that intelligence does not a great leader make.
Palin is more in tune with the majority of Americans...
i know you're just doing this to mess with me. you must be. she's not just "incurious" like dubya, she's genuinely unintelligent. being brilliant isn't a requirement to be a good leader, but stupidity isn't exactly an advantage.
executive decision-making means that at least on some level you have to understand the issues on which you're deciding, better than the average american with an IQ of 98. not all smart people can be a good president, but i don't think it's unfair to say that a good president can't be as dumb as sarah palin.
i know you're just doing this to mess with me. you must be. she's not just "incurious" like dubya, she's genuinely unintelligent. being brilliant isn't a requirement to be a good leader, but stupidity isn't exactly an advantage.
I disagree..
Palin was the most popular governor in the US in a state with a very unique set of circumstances and issues.
You don't get to that by being stupid or ignorant.
It's the same as when people say Bush was dumb or an idiot...
You don't become a VERY successful businessman and rise to President of the United States by being either dumb OR an idiot..
executive decision-making means that at least on some level you have to understand the issues on which you're deciding, better than the average american with an IQ of 98. not all smart people can be a good president, but i don't think it's unfair to say that a good president can't be as dumb as sarah palin.
See above about being dumb.
Palin has what I would term as "street smarts" which is why I think she connects with the majority of American people.
Obama has "book smarts" which means he is all about theory. He would be better suited as the man behind the President. But, as the decision-maker, he fails and fails badly..
Which is not to say he hasn't made some good calls. He has..
But, overall, Obama get's an "F" in leadership...
As for Palin.. In her leadership role that is comparable to POTUS, she got an "A" as evidenced by having the highest approval rating in the entire nation.
As I said above, you don't get to that by being stupid or dumb or ignorant of relevant issues..
Even Howard Dean thinks that Palin could beat Obama.
The Left would do well not to underestimate Palin's appeal to the majority of the American people...
"People like blood sausage, too. People are morons."
-Bill Murray, GROUND HOG DAY
:D
Michale.....
I don't think Palin is dumb. It would be hard to get as far as she has being so. But she has the politically fatal combination of being head strong, incurious and not relying on people around her. The whole Paul Revere foot in mouth is the latest proof. The gaff it's self is of little matter. A news cycle, a week or two of hysterical blog arguments and maybe an attack ad should she get far enough. What it really shows is her laziness to do the work of politicking. Somehow I doubt her bus lacks internet access. She knows and is actively planning to be interviewed at each of these stops. Why did she not take the 30 seconds to look up Paul Revere or the importance of The Old North Church on wikipedia and be prepared for the inevitable interview afterward? Hell, I'm sure there are plaques in that church that tells the entire story or at least enough of it to form an intelligent answer to the question she was asked. Too lazy to read? This is politics 101. If she can't take the time to be prepared she will never get support beyond her current followers and she needs much more to even have a slight chance at a party nomination.
Personally I think she is following Trumps lead and using the whole thing to pimp her name brand and get a better gig at FOX.
As to audio ads. I have never hear them. For me, ad block plus is required for a civilized internet. I have noscript installed but only turn it on when going to darker back waters of the net.
But she has the politically fatal combination of being head strong, incurious and not relying on people around her.
Being head strong is a good thing in my book..
Incurious?? Yea, perhaps.. But in and of itself, that's not a bad thing...
Palin taking a tour of SAC/NORAD
"Gee, I wonder what this button does??"
:D
Not relying on the people around her is a learned attribute..
In essence, what you are saying is that Palin doesn't act like a politician...
That is probably why she appeals to the majority of Americans.
On the other hand, Obama didn't come across as a politician either..
Once in office, he turned into the biggest politician since Greg Stillson..
Thanx for the heads up on AdBlockPlus.. I'll have to check it out...
OTOH, does ABP block the ads in such a way as not to produce Click/Link income for CW.COM?? I would hate to cut into CW's revenue just for the sake of comfort..
Michale.....
i agree, there's a big difference between intelligence and street smarts. however...
there were two weeks between the gibson interview and the couric interview. palin could have asked someone why people didn't like her answer, and solicited assistance in preparing a better one. it's clear from her response that she didn't. this means not only did she grossly misinterpret people's reactions to her, she also didn't have the sense to get help. answer this sincerely, can you imagine bush being that unprepared for the same interview question the second time around, two weeks later?
many people become rich and successful without being particularly intelligent. sometimes it's due to other talents, social connections, or luck. just as being smart doesn't make you wildly rich or successful, being wildly rich and successful doesn't make you smart.
intelligence may not be whet determines one's ability to lead people, but it's dangerous if you both can't understand where you're leading them, and won't listen to anyone who does.
i'm not saying that palin can't or won't be elected. voters in the US aren't in too much danger of getting appreciably brighter anytime soon. i'm just saying that for the good of our country and the world, she shouldn't be elected president.
i'm just saying that for the good of our country and the world, she shouldn't be elected president.
And I am saying that the same applies to President Obama..
Funny thing is, we're both probably right.. :D
Michale.....
The whole Paul Revere foot in mouth is the latest proof.
Strange how local historians are backing up Palin's answer in the matter, eh?? :D
In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
So, maybe Palin is smarter than all of us, eh??
She knew the REAL story, not just the blurb that is taught in schools...
Maybe it's other people's foots and mouths we are discussing, eh? :D
Michale...
Another great article on the REAL idiots of this... :D
Now, that so many Americans have wallowed in their smug confirmation that Palin is an idiot unqualified for anything but Paul Revere thinks about something repeating sixth-grade history, how far, wide and fast do you think the contradictory news will spread that the former governor of Alaska was indeed correct?
That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html
:D
On another note, any time you deal with a person who has a computer problem that is obvious, tell them it's an ID:TEN-T problem... :D
Michale.....
What it really shows is her laziness to do the work of politicking.
Well, you can believe that Palin is a mental giant or a mental midget..
But there still isn't 57 states in the USA.... :D
Michale.....
Or the Palin Spin Machine is in full gear...
Or the Palin Spin Machine is in full gear...
And so is the Left Wing spin.
Face the facts...
Palin set up the MSM and the Left perfectly and the MSM and the Left fell for it hook, line and sinker.. :D
I know it's not in ya'alls nature to give credit where credit is due, but Palin played this perfectly...
She researched the story, found a way to give a nuanced but historically accurate answer to an obvious and inevitable question and then sat back and watch the MSM in collusion with the Hysterical Left make complete and utter fools of themselves.. :D
Personally, I find it hilarious to see the MSM live down to the expectations we all expect of the MSM...
Ask yourself one thing....
If Palin is so inconsequential and irrelevant, why does the Left and the MSM go to such lengths to follow her around (figuratively AND literally) and tear her down??
THAT is the real story here, not Palin's intelligence...
Michale....
Here is what it all boils down to..
You don't get to be the most popular governor in the nation of a state with a very unique set of issues and circumstances by being dumb, an idiot, incurious, lazy, headstrong, not able to delegate or any of another dozen accusations that have been tossed about.
It simply is not possible..
Ergo, the ONLY logical conclusion is that the claims against Governor Palin are wrong...
It's simple logic..
Michale.....
If A then not B, not C, not D, not E where A=popular governor:
B=unintelligent
C=lazy
D=headstrong
E=unwilling to delegate
none of these is anathema to being successful as a politician.
the causal factors, i think at least three of which would be required to actually lead to A are:
F=socially adept
G=good public speaker
H=financially backed
I=charismatic
J=lucky
none of these is mutually exclusive with B,C,D,E. "if A then not B,C,D,E" are false.
none of these is anathema to being successful as a politician.
I would dispute that B and C are possible with successful leaders...
And that's what we are talking about.
We're talking about successful and popular LEADERS, not politicians..
You simply cannot be dumb/stoopid and lazy and be a successful leader..
It's not possible....
Michale.....
But you also leave the most important question unanswered...
If Palin is so inconsequential and irrelevant, unintelligent, lazy etc etc, why does the Left and the MSM go to such lengths to follow her around (figuratively AND literally) and tear her down??
Surely someone so stoopid and lazy and unintelligent wouldn't merit ANY attention whatsoever, eh??
Yet Palin has the MSM **AND** the Left wrapped around her little pinky, hanging on every word and every action...
Me thinks the Left doth protest TOOO much.... :D
Michale.....
If the Left's Palin obsession is too painful a subject to discuss, we can always have a wiener roast... :D
hehehehehehehehe
Michale.....
michale,
sorry i didn't check this blog earlier. i didn't say inconsequential or irrelevant, you did. she is neither. you also didn't acknowledge that i already answered your question. for that matter, you already answered your question. intelligence isn't really a prerequisite to be a popular leader or politician. what's needed are the five factors i mentioned. if you're socially adept, a good speaker, charismatic, lucky and have lots of money behind you (palin has all 5 in spades), you can be as unintelligent and as lazy as you like. very few people will know or care that you didn't study your issues, don't understand them anyway, and don't want anyone else's advice on the matter. palin could be the coach of the miami heat and they'd still make the finals. in fact, they'd probably be up 3-0 instead of 2-1. but i digress.
for my contribution to the weiner roast,
see the limerick on the later post.
if you're socially adept, a good speaker, charismatic, lucky and have lots of money behind you (palin has all 5 in spades), you can be as unintelligent and as lazy as you like. very few people will know or care that you didn't study your issues,
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Perhaps it's my military background, but I simply cannot see that it's possible to be a good leader and be dumb and lazy at the same time..
Considering the latest Paul Revere example, it's apparent that Palin is a lot smarter than the Left gives her credit for..
for my contribution to the weiner roast,
see the limerick on the later post.
This commentary??
Michale....
On another note....
Firms to cut health plans as reform starts: survey
30% of companies say they’ll stop offering coverage
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06
I thought Crap Care would INCREASE insurance coverage for more Americans....?????
Michale.....
michale,
i'm not sure what to make of the marketwatch article, although i'm sure i know what you think. is there any cause-effect relationship here? the bottom line is that when jobs are at a premium, employers can pretty much do anything they want, because people would still rather take the hit than be unemployed. for the results to be valid, we would have to know how many of the same employers would cancel or reduce existing health plans if the new health care law had not been passed, and compare the extent of the anticipated cuts. remember, health coverage costs were skyrocketing in general anyway, and the law didn't really address that basic problem.
i also finally read about the whole paul revere incident, and i think you guys are reading way too much into it. to my nose, she meant to say that paul revere warned about the british, knew what she meant to say and accidentally misspoke. media people smelled blood and jumped all over it as if she didn't know the difference, then the right responded with a yarn about how she really meant to say what she said, just to bait lefty media types.
it's also not a question that pertains much to intelligence, either way. either you know a fact or you don't, and my impression is that she did. even if for some odd reason she didn't know the fact, that would not be evidence of low intellect, just a strange gap in knowledge. likewise, the fox version of events, even if true, still wouldn't be evidence of intelligence, it would signify great social ability, which we knew about already. although there has been some research into EQ or "emotional intelligence," the range of ability we call intelligence relates to analyzing and synthesizing abstract concepts, not remembering and spitting out facts. that's why many brilliant authors still can't spell.
so, much ado about nothing, people misspeak all the time. but i know why it went that way. if you have to explain a mistake, even a small and pointless one, you've lost the news cycle, so it makes much more sense to attack. minor misspeak, predictable media response, clever recovery by fox.
NYPoet,
As far as CrapCare, it just seems to me that we are finding out so many bad things..
Employers are dropping coverage and they say it's because of CrapCare.
People are being forced to change doctors and coverage because of CrapCare.
CrapCare is actually raising costs of healthcare when it's supposed to be saving costs.
And so on and so on and so on...
It's like when Obama said we have to pass the Porkulus or else Unemployment will rise above 8 percent. Well, Porkulus was passed and UE hit above 10 percent and is still today above 9 percent.
How can we trust ANYTHING this administration says with a track record such as the one they have?
As for Palin, it seems to me very unlikely that Palin would have hit upon such a nuanced yet historically accurate answer by accident. Employing Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that Palin set up the MSM and the Left..
This is supported by how quickly the Left dropped the subject and stopped talking about it...
While I know that Palin will never be accused of playing 10-Dimensional chess, I honestly believe that she has an uncanny knack to A> connect with Independents and average Americans and 2> knows how to push the Left's buttons so that they make complete and utter fools of themselves over her...
These are definitely signs of intelligence. Whether these signs will translate into a good leader as POTUS remains to be seen.
But what is undeniable is that she HAS shown good leadership in the past, in a position comparable to President Of The United States..
Obama was not able to make that same claim when HE became a Presidential candidate and, IMNSHO, Obama can't make the "Good Leadership" claim now...
Michale.....
to be honest, i think occam supports my opinion on the paul revere incident. meaning to say one thing and accidentally saying another is both simpler and more common than either of the other two explanations.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
~the princess bride
to be honest, i think occam supports my opinion on the paul revere incident. meaning to say one thing and accidentally saying another is both simpler and more common than either of the other two explanations
I see your point, and it does have merit..
However, the deciding point for me was that Palin was actually correct with her "misspeak" and was right in a very nuanced way. So nuanced a way that it caused her opponents to think she had made a mistake when actually her "misspeak" was historically accurate...
That, to me, smacks of planning..
But, what the hell... :D
Michale.....
Oh yea...
There's no "Palin Obsession" amongst the Left, right???
:^/
Help analyze the Palin e-mails
The Washington POS
Help Us Investigate the Sarah Palin E-Mail Records
The New York Times
Jeeezus H Christ!!
Can anyone say "Witch Hunt"???
You would think that the Left's 3 Year obsession would start to fade..
Ya'all just HAVE to be embarrassed by this, right???
Michale.....
There's no "Palin Obsession" amongst the Left, right???
of course not, everybody is just anxious to see more tina fey.
;-)
but in all seriousness, love her or hate her, palin is entertaining. that's why she draws a crowd. and that's why the right loves her and the left laughs at her - sanctimoniously, but with a touch of genuine fear.
~joshua
You don't find it strange that MSM outlets are soliciting assistance from the general public to "investigate" Palin's emails??
Let me put it another way..
What would your reaction be if Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck solicited the public's help to scour thru Obama's past??
Wouldn't the Left scream RACISM to the highest halls???
Seriously, having media outlets solicit public assistance to help scour thru a private citizen's emails.....?????
Doesn't that bother you even a little???
Michale.....
What would your reaction be if Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck solicited the public's help to scour thru Obama's past??
i don't think it's a legitimate comparison. rightwing pundits have an avowed political agenda. they want to tear down anyone liberal or democratic, and they say so pretty blatantly. calls of racism i've always thought were a bit over the top, but i'm also of the younger generation; folks who lived through segregation are probably more likely to agree with that interpretation.
coverage of palin is for the most part a different story. with maybe the exception of a few MSNBC hosts, the MSM runs with whatever sells. their motivation is not to tear down palin because she's a republican, it's to exploit her notoriety in any way they can, because it makes them advertising money. they don't care whether the e-mails prove that she's the antichrist or a secret super-genius, they just care that she makes their ratings go up.
they want to tear down anyone liberal or democratic, and they say so pretty blatantly.
And Left Wing media outlets don't want to tear down anyone Conservative or Republican??
coverage of palin is for the most part a different story. with maybe the exception of a few MSNBC hosts, the MSM runs with whatever sells. their motivation is not to tear down palin because she's a republican, it's to exploit her notoriety in any way they can, because it makes them advertising money. they don't care whether the e-mails prove that she's the antichrist or a secret super-genius, they just care that she makes their ratings go up.
I disagree.. I think it is BECAUSE Palin is a conservative that they want to tear her down..
If notoriety or ratings is all they were after, why not pick on Hillary?? Or Weiner?? Or any one of a hundred other Liberal/Democrats who are marred with scandal??
Why not solicit the help of the public in going thru Weiner's tweets??
Because he is a liberal Democrat and media outlets are in the bag for liberal Democrats...
Having said all that, I do have to issue a minor correction..
After reading a different story on the same subject, I discovered that it's Palin's executive emails from her time as Alaska Gov that are being read..
As such, it's not AS bad as personal emails...
But, it's still pretty creepy that these media outlets would solicit the public's help in targeting a (now) private citizen.
But, don't fool yourself. It's not that Palin generates ratings.. That's just an added bonus..
But, regardless of all that, the overall point of my post was not so much that media targets Palin because she is a conservative...
My main point is that there is a very unhealthy obsession that the Left has with Palin. Not a day goes by that you don't see a commentary about Palin in the Banter Wire above...
It's been over 3 years.. Don't you think this Palin obsession has gone on long enough??
I'll ask again, what I have asked a few times above??
If Palin is so unintelligent and irrelevant, why is the Left so adamant about attacking her and tearing her down??
Michale.....
I guess what I need is someone who really hates Palin to explain to me why..
Fortunately, I won't find anyone like that here... :D
Michale....
Once again, Sarah Palin shows up the Hysterical Left and the Lame Stream Media... :D
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100091820/american-way-sarah-palin-email-frenzy-backfires-on-her-media-antagonists/