dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:"BO has touted community organizing as part of his qualifications. we should take him at this word about the opportunity such work holds. across the country, many people work in their communities to help folks [do whatever, etc]. i'm sure we'd all appreciate it if BO would give us just one thing he did as a community organizer that brought about the Change he promises. And please, be specific."

Politically, they couldn't do that. Too much of a chance he'd knock it out of the park. A lot of that work had to do with helping people through economic dislocations through job training and trying to get local government (City of Chicago, in that case) to be more responsive to the needs of the community; think that might resonate with people right now?

That said, I wish I lived in the country where politicians conducted themselves that way.

We do to a certain extent. The people doing the little work are doing most of the job.

And one reason why I have always liked Obama is the fact that he even while in power wouldn't expect the job he does to be without questioning.

There are a lot of fundamental things that I don't agree with Obama on, but as a person I think he is an A. He has views that I don't think are achievable and are completely unrealistic especially if he wants to maintain the original goals he speaks about.

Hearing him talk about his tax plan makes me shiver. Not because it is going to hurt me personally, but because it has the makings of a HUGE disaster.

Thanks, asshat.

WilliamC wrote:Hearing him talk about his tax plan makes me shiver. Not because it is going to hurt me personally, but because it has the makings of a HUGE disaster.

How so?

Rococo4 wrote:

gr wrote:Palin & Guiliani tonight definitely missed an opportunity to address the "community organizer" question in an effective way. they used it for punchlines, which had an immediate payoff, but could come back to haunt them. this party is supposed to value work of any kind, if it's truly work (see: welfare reform, etc).

the issue is that no one really knows what "community organizing" is, probably even people who live in communities that have that type of work. a better way to address this would have been:

"BO has touted community organizing as part of his qualifications. we should take him at this word about the opportunity such work holds. across the country, many people work in their communities to help folks [do whatever, etc]. i'm sure we'd all appreciate it if BO would give us just one thing he did as a community organizer that brought about the Change he promises. And please, be specific."

it's only my opinion, but it seems better to put the burden of proof on someone, as opposed to going for cheap laughs.

it may have come off as putting those people down, but i think the point was to emphaize how he did nothing when that was his job.

So how is that not putting "those people" down?

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:"BO has touted community organizing as part of his qualifications. we should take him at this word about the opportunity such work holds. across the country, many people work in their communities to help folks [do whatever, etc]. i'm sure we'd all appreciate it if BO would give us just one thing he did as a community organizer that brought about the Change he promises. And please, be specific."

Politically, they couldn't do that. Too much of a chance he'd knock it out of the park. A lot of that work had to do with helping people through economic dislocations through job training and trying to get local government (City of Chicago, in that case) to be more responsive to the needs of the community; think that might resonate with people right now?

That said, I wish I lived in the country where politicians conducted themselves that way.

i don't know, maybe i'm naive. i think they could do it politically and have it succeed with respect to their message which is, "hey nice work, but let's be specific about what it is because it's a farther cry from the WH than people realize" blah blah. the structure is essentially the same as plenty of other passages in all the speeches: set up, some deference, tough question, demand specifics when you know they won't really pay off. they could have basically said, "that's great but you're not even the most accomplished community organizer on the block etc" i don't feel like it's any worse than harping on the fact that palin was a small town mayor.

i'm sure, however, they probably polled the "community organizer" business and found that people were like "yeah, what the hell does that mean" and just said "OK that's the angle." too bad.

Rococo4 wrote:

gr wrote:Palin & Guiliani tonight definitely missed an opportunity to address the "community organizer" question in an effective way. they used it for punchlines, which had an immediate payoff, but could come back to haunt them. this party is supposed to value work of any kind, if it's truly work (see: welfare reform, etc).

the issue is that no one really knows what "community organizing" is, probably even people who live in communities that have that type of work. a better way to address this would have been:

"BO has touted community organizing as part of his qualifications. we should take him at this word about the opportunity such work holds. across the country, many people work in their communities to help folks [do whatever, etc]. i'm sure we'd all appreciate it if BO would give us just one thing he did as a community organizer that brought about the Change he promises. And please, be specific."

it's only my opinion, but it seems better to put the burden of proof on someone, as opposed to going for cheap laughs.

it may have come off as putting those people down, but i think the point was to emphaize how he did nothing when that was his job. If that is the line that is the uproar from the left tonight, then she did a great job.

What?

gr wrote:they could have basically said, "that's great but you're not even the most accomplished community organizer on the block etc" i don't feel like it's any worse than harping on the fact that palin was a small town mayor.

i'm sure, however, they probably polled the "community organizer" business and found that people were like "yeah, what the hell does that mean" and just said "OK that's the angle." too bad.

I'm sure that's right about the polling. But I don't think the comparison between "community organizer"--something Obama did 20 years ago, since which time he's done a lot of other things--and "small town mayor," which Palin did two years ago and comprises the bulk of her time in public life, is an apples-to-apples comparison. Not even sure they're both fruit, in fact.

For that matter, I don't think (and maybe I'm wrong here) the criticism of Palin is that she was a small-town mayor--more that she hasn't really been anything else relevant to public life, at least not for more than 20 months or whatever.

The whole "experience" debate is a waste of time, I think, in part for the reasons Kinsley lays out in that piece I linked to--the only relevant experience for that job is doing that job--and in part because it's not solely what they've done, but what they believe and how the public responds to them.

Whatever you think of Obama's experience, a large chunk of the electorate obviously has concluded that he has the requisite whatever for the presidency. Also true of McCain--who has no more "executive experience" than Obama. McCain's "experience case" is chronological--we can all agree he's been there longer--and then it gets more or less subjective: people argue that he's done more to reach across the aisle, et cetera. You get to intangibles (McCain's temper, Obama's judgment, their respective associations) very quickly.

If you compare the VP selections, it's even weirder. Huckabee's line that Palin got more votes in her mayoral wins than Biden did in his presidential run isn't actually true, but it does get to an interesting point of comparison. Nobody has argued that Biden is "too inexperienced" to be president... because, one, he's been in the Senate even longer than McCain; two, he's such a fixture in what we could call the "public culture of the government" (Sunday morning talk shows and such); and three, his views on a wide range of issues are well known and well documented. (Just ask him.)

So from a Democratic POV, you could argue that Obama (and McCain) were vetted by the primary electorates. Biden was vetted--like it or not--by the voters of Delaware, a bunch of times, and the "DC Establishment." Palin was vetted by... McCain. That's absolutely his prerogative, of course. But I think it's fair to ask who she is and what she's about.

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:they could have basically said, "that's great but you're not even the most accomplished community organizer on the block etc" i don't feel like it's any worse than harping on the fact that palin was a small town mayor.

i'm sure, however, they probably polled the "community organizer" business and found that people were like "yeah, what the hell does that mean" and just said "OK that's the angle." too bad.

I'm sure that's right about the polling. But I don't think the comparison between "community organizer"--something Obama did 20 years ago, since which time he's done a lot of other things--and "small town mayor," which Palin did two years ago and comprises the bulk of her time in public life, is an apples-to-apples comparison. Not even sure they're both fruit, in fact.

For that matter, I don't think (and maybe I'm wrong here) the criticism of Palin is that she was a small-town mayor--more that she hasn't really been anything else relevant to public life, at least not for more than 20 months or whatever.

The whole "experience" debate is a waste of time, I think, in part for the reasons Kinsley lays out in that piece I linked to--the only relevant experience for that job is doing that job--and in part because it's not solely what they've done, but what they believe and how the public responds to them.

Whatever you think of Obama's experience, a large chunk of the electorate obviously has concluded that he has the requisite whatever for the presidency. Also true of McCain--who has no more "executive experience" than Obama. McCain's "experience case" is chronological--we can all agree he's been there longer--and then it gets more or less subjective: people argue that he's done more to reach across the aisle, et cetera. You get to intangibles (McCain's temper, Obama's judgment, their respective associations) very quickly.

If you compare the VP selections, it's even weirder. Huckabee's line that Palin got more votes in her mayoral wins than Biden did in his presidential run isn't actually true, but it does get to an interesting point of comparison. Nobody has argued that Biden is "too inexperienced" to be president... because, one, he's been in the Senate even longer than McCain; two, he's such a fixture in what we could call the "public culture of the government" (Sunday morning talk shows and such); and three, his views on a wide range of issues are well known and well documented. (Just ask him.)

So from a Democratic POV, you could argue that Obama (and McCain) were vetted by the primary electorates. Biden was vetted--like it or not--by the voters of Delaware, a bunch of times, and the "DC Establishment." Palin was vetted by... McCain. That's absolutely his prerogative, of course. But I think it's fair to ask who she is and what she's about.

i can't believe i'm still awake. what happened to my life? to be fair to myself, i went to the game last night and dinner tonight and didn't get home until right about 10.

the experience argument is meh. overall, it's a wash. on Palin, the BO campaign did themselves no favor by denouncing her qualifications as a Mayor when she was introduced, ignoring her Gov term, which although short, does have its accomplishments. after mccain ran the congratulatory ad, i thought it made BO look petty. yeah, they've been pecking at the community organizer thing, but get thicker skin already. overall, doesn't it seem strange that BO is comparing his experience to the VP pick? i think that's a mistake, anyways.

i've read that vetting argument before and it holds some water. i woulnd't however go so far as to say that a majority of the electorate finds him to be qualified. he's currently at 50% for the first time. and you know, just as with the other side, half of that group was going to support him if he was 35 and unemployed, just as long as he was "anything but Bush."

one thing the media is getting right is the "before the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it." that's more or less true. but the family stuff, it's got to stop. MSNBC, Andrew Sullivan, US Weekly & Rolling Stone, it's really really disgusting and meaningless.

gr wrote:i've read that vetting argument before and it holds some water. i woulnd't however go so far as to say that a majority of the electorate finds him to be qualified. he's currently at 50% for the first time. and you know, just as with the other side, half of that group was going to support him if he was 35 and unemployed, just as long as he was "anything but Bush."

Just to be clear: I was referring to his winning the primary in terms of a large chunk of the electorate giving him the thumbs-up. He's had that question presented to millions of voters, just as McCain did, just as every nominee of both parties has since 1972 (when they more or less did away with the smoke-filled rooms).

35 and un(der)employed... maybe I should have run this year... nah. As Jon Stewart says: There are pictures.

Otherwise, I find it's often more difficult to get to sleep after the Phillies fuck up one's evening.

It sounds, gr, like what you really want is something that explains that BO accomplished nothing as a community organizer but PR. There are plenty of places with that spin.

Just say it, next time, rather than wasting my time with BS.

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:i've read that vetting argument before and it holds some water. i woulnd't however go so far as to say that a majority of the electorate finds him to be qualified. he's currently at 50% for the first time. and you know, just as with the other side, half of that group was going to support him if he was 35 and unemployed, just as long as he was "anything but Bush."

Just to be clear: I was referring to his winning the primary in terms of a large chunk of the electorate giving him the thumbs-up. He's had that question presented to millions of voters, just as McCain did, just as every nominee of both parties has since 1972 (when they more or less did away with the smoke-filled rooms).

35 and un(der)employed... maybe I should have run this year... nah. As Jon Stewart says: There are pictures.

Otherwise, I find it's often more difficult to get to sleep after the Phillies $#@! up one's evening.

OK. I might still argue that he basically split with Hillary, but your point's taken. Whatever it is, it's more than Palin. (But again, P vs. VP, etc). She's got a month to prepare for Biden. That's probably the only other big test she'll have.

This IS the team's fault. Losing 2 of 3 to the Nats is a prescription for a my own personal health care disaster.

Amy Poehler. THAT's who Cindy McCain reminds me of.

swishnicholson wrote:It sounds, gr, like what you really want is something that explains that BO accomplished nothing as a community organizer but PR. There are plenty of places with that spin.

Just say it, next time, rather than wasting my time with BS.

Uh, no, i want something that actually expains it to me, so I understand it in an honest sense. I made that clear initially and do not believe I've ragged on whatever it is that he did, because, simply, I don't know. I then provided some opinions on how some of the GOP offensive could have been written in a more effective way. I condoned nothing, only critiqued. I suggest you reread my comments next time before essentilly calling me a partisan or a spinster. I'm not either, I don't believe.

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:"BO has touted community organizing as part of his qualifications. we should take him at this word about the opportunity such work holds. across the country, many people work in their communities to help folks [do whatever, etc]. i'm sure we'd all appreciate it if BO would give us just one thing he did as a community organizer that brought about the Change he promises. And please, be specific."

Politically, they couldn't do that. Too much of a chance he'd knock it out of the park. A lot of that work had to do with helping people through economic dislocations through job training and trying to get local government (City of Chicago, in that case) to be more responsive to the needs of the community; think that might resonate with people right now?

That said, I wish I lived in the country where politicians conducted
themselves that way.

I agree with that last sentiment. The hypocrisy on both sides is maddening. Just look at the inconsistencies of Republicans who mock the Democrats for picking Obama or in one case the potential of chosing Tim Kaine as VP (see Karl Rove). They then turn to the Palin pick and get a giant boner over it for some reason. It doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.

I know how some of you loathe the Daily Show, but I think Jon Stewart made a really interesting point when interviewing Newt Gingrich. In regards to the abortion debate, Palin said that it was her daughter's decision to have the baby. Palin also says that she wants to ban abortion, even rape cases. Stewart pointed out the inconsistency or really hypocrisy in that how come it is fine for her daughter to have a decision or choice but no one else can make that decision?

As a disclaimer, I am against abortion. However, I do not think it is as black and white as politicians make it out to be.

No one is winning this election because of the pundits and coverage of the conventions. Lots of cheering at both. Palin is effective so far, only in so far as they have been able to spin some things that seem to resonate for cheap sound bytes. The reality is, that home-spun, I'm just a mom, but I'm tough too and ready for the big show... will play nicely in uneducated circles, or with republicans who know its smoke and mirrors and just want to win. But the reality is, that Republicans stand for things and have lead this country for 16 of the last 24 years and things are really really bad. Bad for working Americans, middle-class Americans -- and the republicans have had 8 years and made a mess of things. Corruption, and the turning back of the clock on civil liberties. It's dire. I don't believe Obama is some super-star, but he will do less damage and might do a couple good things. Sarah Palin isn't goin to govern and all this talk of the perception of her as a chess move in the big election -- is silly.

It's silly to suggest that Obama can't do the job or that John McCain is smarter and wiser. It's silly to compare all this stuff about her being a mayor of 5,000 people versus Obama as a Senator. I said in an earlier post that one doesn't need a huge resume to serve the people, and that's true for Palin and Obama. Biden is as credible as McCain. There's no edge to either side.

Let's get back to issues. I also don't want another radical right-winger in there trying to turn back the clock so that Creationism becomes dogma in the public schools and women are in back alleys of Tijuana with hanger-abortions.

Anyone who was a Hilary supporter JUST because she was a woman, well, who knows. But if they were a Democrat first, hating what Bush did to the country, then unlikely Palin will make a bit of difference.

I don't know what a Biden Palin debate will look like, but I hopehe goes for the jugular. Make her look silly. Be courteous, not sexist, but make her look like the rookie she is.

The only thing missing from the Republican feeding frenzy tonight was a Zeig-heil salute.

To all you Obama hating Republicans, who suffered through his effective speech and excellent presentation -- don't give me all this nonsense about "what kind of community organizer was he", simply tell me why you think he's not really qualified, knowing full well that a president doesn't make policy in a vacuum. You don't think he knows the issues? You don't think he's smart? You don't think he'll ask good questions? Or -- you just want your man the republican to win? That's fine. But don't act like Obama isn't qualified or that McCain is more sophisticated. Experience? Nonsense. it's about policies and issues. I think McCain is a loose-canon, he's out of touch with the average American, his foreign policy projections are abhorrent to me, and he has nothing to offer us domestically. He's bought and sold (so is Obama for the most part) by the lobbyists and wealthy and DC insiders.

All the rhetoric is just that for the most part. McCain isn't going to govern as some maverick. Obama isn't going to implement Republican policies and probably is more likely as did Clinton to cross the isle on occasion that the reverse.

The media frames most of this, the local news tonight picked 2-3 people to interview as though somehow its reflective of any more than the anecdotal effect of 2-3people. And sadly, the populace at-large is often more impressed with sound bytes and perception and spin, and how something appears on TV, than really the details of policy.

Obama hit hard -- refreshing for once from Dems, and the Rep are trying to hit back. It's not about "what has Obama lead", it's what does Obama stand for, what's his message and what are his policies and who will be in his cabinet. Same for McCain.

It's a close race, a divided country, a country where people do not vote their own class interests, and where deep divides in social positions keeps us divided, all the while, being herded like sheep to be good consumers.

Blech. Let's get to the debates and get this thing over with already. I'm so sick of it all.

PS

If republicans get to appoint anymore Supreme Court justices, I may leave the country for a while...

I just watched her speech and for her to perform it as well as she did was pretty amazing. P-t-K, I don't think she is going to be exposed as a rookie anytime soon.

I can't believe I just read all of that.

And if anything your post is defensive. Something must have you worried(besides those little green creatures under your bed carrying microphones that lead directly to the White House).

Tuning In To The Pulse Of The Heartland

You can read as many articles in the national newspapers or on insider websites like Politico as you want, but I doubt you will ever learn as much about this country and this coming election without taking a moment and listening to what the middle of the country is saying.

This is our country, the country that re-elected an imbecile after he proved his imbecility.

Wolf Blitzer, on Palin's speech: "She aroused the 20,000 people at the convention tonight..."

I love that it's completely OK to put down the work, belittle the work, and essentially consider community organizing pointless. I will go tell my friends that they aren't doing anything, that gr's already done it all and it wasn't tough, and that they're just pussies who should tell people to man up and improve their own lives right quick. Why aren't they off making lots of money for themselves with their degrees? Losers.

CalvinBall wrote:I know how some of you loathe the Daily Show, but I think Jon Stewart made a really interesting point when interviewing Newt Gingrich. In regards to the abortion debate, Palin said that it was her daughter's decision to have the baby. Palin also says that she wants to ban abortion, even rape cases. Stewart pointed out the inconsistency or really hypocrisy in that how come it is fine for her daughter to have a decision or choice but no one else can make that decision?

As a disclaimer, I am against abortion. However, I do not think it is as black and white as politicians make it out to be.

Yep, I wrote that in the last thread, it was largely ignored.