Democratic National Convention Discussion

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Obviously your not a woman who has had her man and his friends rescue used furniture off the tree lawn.

Just watching the highlights. The DNC uses the term Obamacare now?

All these people talkkin of safety nets, reminds me of "nanny state".

Just my impressions.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Mass appeal probably wasn't the right term. Anne Romney had more to gain in her speech considering the gender gap and she accomplished that a little, so in terms of vote power her speech may have edged out the FLOTUS.

FLOTUS, love that term. It's flower like, I might consider naming a daughter Flotus some day.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
Comparing speeches by potential first ladies, I'd say Mrs. Obama is more polished in political thought, with her educational background and all. But Mrs. Romney may have given a more effective speech in terms of mass appeal.

I like Mrs. Romney, but I think she was completely out matched in every regard.

That was one of the best speeches I have ever seen, Mr. Obama will be lucky to

even touch that level IMO.

reply to post by thepresident


To be honest I was multi tasking while she was speaking and now that I'm reviewing it there are a lot of really good things that I missed. It was a great speech, and better than Anne's in a side by side comparison.

But still, I think people were expecting greatness from Michelle and while she might have surpassed, it's still a close call to which first lady's speech had a bigger impact on the election. I think Mrs. Obama is a much more natural political speaker and could probably hold a high office if she wanted to. People have seen her on the national stage. That's why I think Anne Romney's speech was a little more important.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Someone is trying to blame the media for the diversity of the crowd. That's funny. Like the DNC 'planted' some ethnic people in the audience.

while watching the DNC tonight, I was shocked by the ratio of minority to "majority" personalities depicted in the "candid" crowd shots.

The President is black. If he can't get some black people at his convention he should go back to Hawaii.
Another person says that Democrats "despise" God:

Mayor Castro just mentioned God, and there was silence since most Dems despise God.

Is keeping Church and State separate, equal to despising God? I think that's a stretch. Someone else says the Democrats removed God from the "platform?"

Maybe nobody here cares, but the DNC removed God from their platform.

If the prayer portion was omitted from the convention, is it possibly a deliberate nod to, and way to respect the many other religions of this country?

I am hoping for the best but I wasn't thrilled with Michele Obama's speech. All I kept hearing was the word "sacrifice" and nobody wants to hear that - For Christs sakes, lie to us. I hope Obama has something better planned for Thursday. He's gonna have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to top those RNC speeches.

They were a craftily blended concoction of propaganda, false hope and deliberate lies. Just enough of everything to make desperate people say ..."Yes! That's what we want!"

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by thepresident

 

To be honest I was multi tasking while she was speaking and now that I'm reviewing it there are a lot of really good things that I missed. It was a great speech, and better than Anne's in a side by side comparison.

But still, I think people were expecting greatness from Michelle and while she might have surpassed, it's still a close call to which first lady's speech had a bigger impact on the election. I think Mrs. Obama is a much more natural political speaker and could probably hold a high office if she wanted to. People have seen her on the national stage. That's why I think Anne Romney's speech was a little more important.

OK,

fair enough man

I hope to see you here more often, I enjoy your contribution.

It was an interesting first night from my nonpartisan point of view. I decided that the slogan "Forward. Not Back." is no more impressive than "Believe in America".

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in America, and Forward is usually my choice of direction when traveling, but they could do better than that.

The speakers seemed to have a great influence on the DNC tonight, though I missed Michelle Obama's speech - CNN was reporting it was better than Ann Romney's, while mentioning that everyone in America could relate to Michelle more than her.

The demographics of the DNC seem differ greatly from the RNC, as well. Don't shoot me if I look surprised.

"Restore America Now" blows both the other slogans out of the water by the way, is much more direct, and has a specific plan to back it. Too bad that guy got shoved out of the way through shenanigans.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

 

Someone is trying to blame the media for the diversity of the crowd. That's funny. Another person says that Democrats don't believe in God while someone else says the Democrats removed God from the Convention. If that is true is it possible this is a deliberate nod to and way to respect other religions? I am hoping for the best but I wasn't thrilled with Michele Obama's speech. All I kept hearing was the word sacrifice and nobody wants to hear that - for Christs sakes, lie to us. I hope Obama has something better planned for Thursday. He's gonna have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to top the RNC speeches.

I disagree, although now that I think about it... The word Sacrifice should be cut out.

I am not sure how you thought the RNC speeches were very good though, I thought the 08

speeches were much better. They were VERY negative in comparison to the DNC speeches

this time around.

reply to post by Sek82


I think the Democratic speaking lineup is generally more impressive than Republican, and they are leaving some big guns in the closet like Hilary and Gov. Cuomo(NY).

btw, anyone here a Kal Penn fan? The original Harold and Kumar was one of my favorites in high school. I just saw the new one today before I even knew he'd be speaking. He was also good on the show House. Really talented guy, and his speech was a way better Hollywood performance than Clint.




It's amazing to me that lude pothead Kumar can make a speech on a national political stage.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Ann Romney's speech wasn't horrible. But for me personally it told me nothing of her or Mitt. She came across as window dressing to fix Mitt's problem with women. And there isn't anything she could do to fix that ship. The Republican Party decided back in 2010 to have that fight and now the bill is coming due. When I see Michelle Obama and hear her words, I have lived that hardship. When I see and hear Ann Romney, I could only wish for that life. The Romney's started out on third base, and like Castro said tonight he just doesn't know how easy he had it.

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

 

Someone is trying to blame the media for the diversity of the crowd. That's funny. Another person says that Democrats don't believe in God while someone else says the Democrats removed God from the Convention. If that is true is it possible this is a deliberate nod to and way to respect other religions? I am hoping for the best but I wasn't thrilled with Michele Obama's speech. All I kept hearing was the word sacrifice and nobody wants to hear that - for Christs sakes, lie to us. I hope Obama has something better planned for Thursday. He's gonna have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to top the RNC speeches.

I disagree, although now that I think about it... The word Sacrifice should be cut out.

I am not sure how you thought the RNC speeches were very good though, I thought the 08

speeches were much better. They were VERY negative in comparison to the DNC speeches

this time around.

You have to say what people want to hear. At least a little. Sprinkle a little American exceptional-ism in there. Remind people " we got this" and keep it positive, affirmative. We don't want the saccharin coated snapshots of Daddy O at the dinner table discussing Sashas school day. I don't anyway. Give me a reason to vote for you again. Hell just reminding me... "The lions at the gate" would do it.

reply to post by newcovenant


That was my statement, and without treading on feet, I disagree with your interpretation. What vote is Obama trying to secure? My only reason for making that comment was to express how one sided the "candid" video was, you can't deny that. The ratio was truly astonishing (so much so that it got me to join and post).

Maybe I'm one of those white, Catholic, he-devils that doesn't get what the general voter wants, however, the observable difference between "majority/minority" (I dislike those labeling terms) shots was blatant.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Thanks for your perspective. I think the void in Mrs. Romney's speech was the result of not really being qualified to discuss political issues. Her aim was to "humanize" Mitt as a loving husband, and nothing more, in the hopes that a love story would capture emotional driven voters. And while she hasn't faced the middle class struggle to any extent, she hasn't had it too easy with MS and cancer.

It's interesting to compare recent presidential wives between the parties. Anne Romney, Cindy McCain, and Laura Bush are all wives and mothers above all else, conforming to the traditionalist Christian model. They all have some achievement, but mostly in philanthropy associated with their husbands.

Hilary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Theresa Heinz, and Michelle Obama are all more individual career oriented and activist.

reply to post by jibeho

The only coverage I could bear to watch was a little Q&A with Sean Hannity and some Dem. surrogates for Obama.

No doubt I will find many posts from you over the next few days railing about speeches that you refuse to watch. Pretty sorry excuse and definitely reflects a closed, welded shut mind.

I watched most all the Republican convention, even the pre-prime time stuff (watched that on CSPAN). I will do the same for the DNC convention. As an American, I refuse to be intellectually lazy and I'd give the same opinion if you watched only the DNC and not the RNC speeches. This is important stuff, too bad you don't have the fortitude to bear it.

Now on to my opinion having watched both. This day 1 for the DNC blew the doors off the 1st day of the RNC event. During the RNC event, the hall was half empty until prime time. The DNC people were in their seats and making lots of noise all night. By contrast the RNC event was tepid, with people mildly engaged except for the bigger names. Most interestingly, the RNC ran AWAY from Romney in their speeches, mentioning him only in passing. It was clear to all that theirs was no full-throated endorsement of their guy. The DNC event was 180 degrees opposite that. The speakers were better, the speeches were better and the difference between crowd enthusiasm is remarkable.

Of all the RNC speeches, to me, only Rubio tore it up and that had to wait until the last night. This was the Dems first night and speaker after speaker delivered big time, both in content and delivery.

Originally posted by thepresident
reply to post by jibeho

 

Don't play cute, you know exactly what I'm talking about

Obama, is an illegal alien, communist, muslim, who is going to become a dictator,
who destroyed the economy in 2008 , invented street drugs and started both wars.

---deleted -- I missed the sarcasm

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Good speeches, but I am trying not to watch too much. last week was the RNC infomercial, this week is the DNC infomercial, everyone will make fantastic speeches, but the debates is what will be intriguing.

In my opinion, this night in general, and the theme will be overall positive.

The debates will be epic. I personally don't think Romney stands a chance. Obama, say what you want, knows how to play ball and he'll keep Romney off balance. When that happens, Romney crashes. Romney will come off as strained, cold, negative and wooden. Obama will be relaxed, empathetic, positive, more authoritative and will toss out lots smiles. And God help Romney when the discussion goes into foreign policy. In debates, an incumbent has the edge because he has walked the path.

I expect Romney to do a lot of that head back fake laugh stuff and to move his hands into Obama's personal space -- he's fond of trying to project physical power. It won't work though since Obama is no wuss.

Originally posted by stonebutterfly
I am so feeling this convention! San Antonio mayor, Julio Castro was amazing. He hit home with his speech! I think Texas is in for a big turn around. All of us down here were swelling with pride at our Latino brother speaking at the DNC! First Latino speaker at a DNC ever!

Mrs.Obama was wonderful as usual! She really provoked emotions, and as a woman I felt her words about her husband and children. I cant wait for Thursday!

Mitt's Latino deficit is about to get MUCH worse. This is the first I've heard of this mayor. Damn, he was unbelievable and THEN he pulled out stat about how well his city is doing under his leadership. The other masterstroke he did was that he managed to make this an AMERICAN speech, not simply a Latino one. Bravo. The guy crushed it.

The speeches tonight showed a VERY deep bench for the Democratic party.

Originally posted by booyakasha092
reply to post by newcovenant

 

That was my statement, and without treading on feet, I disagree with your interpretation. What vote is Obama trying to secure? My only reason for making that comment was to express how one sided the "candid" video was, you can't deny that. The ratio was truly astonishing (so much so that it got me to join and post).

Maybe I'm one of those white, Catholic, he-devils that doesn't get what the general voter wants, however, the observable difference between "majority/minority" (I dislike those labeling terms) shots was blatant.

edit on 4-9-2012 by booyakasha092 because: It's late...

OK. That's just how it seemed to me. I guess I don't get what you mean by "one sided?" Because there were whites and non-whites? I don't find the ratio strange or disproportionate. When you say majority and minority that could mean "in the room" or Hispanics or many other possibilities so not sure that's a great choice. And when someone describes them self, in jest, in speculation or in actuality... believe them. Nobody knows them better and you may not get a second chance. I guess what I'm saying is, I believe you.

Here is the thing though, the right will ultimately ignore this week. the left is already voting anyhow, the independents are going to watch a movie and get annoyed at all this endless political coverage. So, who are these conventions ultimately aimed at? Who watches a convention to try and figure out if they like or dislike a person?
Maybe when its all new players (2008) but this year..meh.

So ya, debates is when the actual independent voters tune in..no more glitter and lies, face to face debate and discourse. let both make their case sitting side by side and decide...outside..meh, its political theater as usual.

That's the thing...I did NOT hear lies tonight, whereas I heard them repeatedly from the Right speakers. If you are a Romney fan, you'd better hope to hell you are right that indies did not watch. If they do, you are done big time. The debates will only make the cement harden.