Obama’s speech – post-mortum

While we wait for Sarah Palin to settle out, lets talk about something a lot more interesting. What are your impressions of what Obama said Thursday night? Not how successful it was (very), not how many watched it (tons), but what he said.

A couple of things keep poping up in my mind. They pop up because they were things he said that were not in his interest in terms of maximum votes. But they were important if he wants to govern effectively and by laying them out, it makes it easier to claim a mandate for them.

  1. He promised better pay for teachers, but then tied that to greater accountability of those teachers. This is one of the two key things we must address to fix our schools – and he listed the unpopular part with the polular.
  2. Saying that we must end those programs that are not successful. With that he made every lobbyist his enemy. Yet again, this is key to bringing the federal system under control.
  3. Including nuclear power in his list of what technologies we will use. Definitely a necessary oiece of the puzzle (look at France) but not a popular one.

87 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Libertad says:

    I was not inspired. Don’t get me wrong, nice speech, met the need, but a C overall.

    The people were not inspired, Invesco was 85-90% of capacity – yes I know the floor was full of delegates.

    I expected more out of the speech. There were groups of people that started THE WAVE, USA-USA chant and OBAMA-OBAMA chant … but they never took off.

    • Go Blue says:

      I was there. The Chants of USA-Yes We Can, the Wave, the Dancing and Singing all TOOK OFF in a big 80,000 plus way.


      • john says:

        He really spent way too much time attacking McCain and not enough on his strengths, such as the comment, “There are no red states, there are no blue states, there is only the United States of America” which led to the “USA” chants.

        The entire first half of the speech was really disappointing, because he’s been slipping back into attack mode in recent months, somewhat belying his “new politics” approach that’s supposed to be all positive. Obama’s at his best when he talks hope, which is what he did in the second half of the speech.

        First half: C-. Second half: A. So the GPA rounded out at a B.

      • Ralphie says:

        It’s Libertad.  The truth is optional.

        • Libertad says:

          Your truth sir is to deny people the right to freely associate. You sir participate in gangland style bully tactics.

          WHo gave Colorado’s state employees the Right-to-Work … it was Govenror Ritter.

          • Danny the Red (hair) says:

            at least try to make sense.

            Your drivel is unreadable.

          • Go Blue says:

            You’re not only incoherent but laughable as well.  

            • Libertad says:

              “Who gave Colorado’s state employees the Right-to-Work … it was Govenror Ritter.”  

              • Go Blue says:

                why do you push a so-called Right-to-Work Amendment? There seems to be absolutely no need for it then, unless you have another motive and a hidden agenda for pushing such a political position.  

                • Libertad says:

                  Shouldn’t the rest of Colorado’s citizens have these same rights?

                  Union political influence (dues $) are used to block school reform, keep highly performing workers down, lower the American GDP, elect radicals who support non Xtain-Jew values, politicize the workplace, drive corruption internal to the organization, drive external corruption, fund radical 527s that boost controlling lobbyists power, etc….

                  p.s. it is true the Governor gave state employees RTW.

                  p.s.2 Campaign finance limits have put more money in the hands of lobbyists and leadership to control who gets elected and how they vote.

                  • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                    You are treading on dangerous territory when you start talking about religion.

                    What exactly are Jew values?

                    Be careful or you may begin to be viewed as something significantly worse than just annoying.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      Libertad was using shorthand for the familiar construct “Judeo-Christian values.” I have no idea what he’s talking about in this context (Nirvana? praying several times a day? opposition to Nativity scenes?), but it’s a common way of casting aspersion from the Right, I doubt he meant to tread into dangerous territory by his inelegant typing.

      • BlueCat says:

        And we WERE inspired.  The place was rocking.  I liked the specifics but I loved the way he reclaimed patriotism for the Democratic party.  Once had a Republican ask me why I was wearing a flag pin.  He didn’t think Dems were into the flag! Of course for decades their have been way more Dem combat vets in congress than Republican ones but they are the true patriots and the true family value folks and don’t confuse them with facts.  So I loved all the flag waving and chants of USA.  

        I’d give him a solid A-.  A little more red meat attack (without attacking McCain’s patriotism or service) with a few more details in a few more areas would have made it a solid A.  My section was wildly enthusiastic and happy, even those of us who got to Invesco before 11:30 AM and had spent a very long tiring day.  We had a GREAT time and were profoundly moved and energized.

        • Go Blue says:

          I have a blast! Everyone around me had a great time and was inspired to work even harder. I’m taking the day off to recover from such a long week, but come tomorrow Im going to be out registering new voters!

          • CJ says:

            I have been to dozens of political speeches, including convention acceptance speeches (I’m old).  I have never seen a crowd so inspired and energetic as at Obama’s speech at Mile High.  So, I don’t know where you’re getting your spin, libertad.

            • Libertad says:

              I’ll revise to a C+.

              A C throughout, with wisps of an A.

              I just expected more, I guess my expectations where too high.

              ps I stand by the lack of support for infirmed and elderly.

    • Steve Balboni says:

      You obviously were not there or if you were you were not attempting to move around the stadium like I was. Fire Marshalls were closing down entire sections because of the size of the crowd. Sections with bad sight lines were not totally full but the rest of the stadium was absolutely packed in. I had passes that gave me access all over the stadium and the FM’s were shutting down access points all over because of the size of the crowd.  

      • Go Blue says:

        another 40 Million who watched all of it on TV! Thursday was an incredibly huge success for Democrats. No doubt about it. And as David pointed out on another thread, in McCain insecure attempt to get back in the spotlight, he redirected any criticism (if there were any) of Obama’s speech on to his poor judgement of choicing perhaps the worst VP pick in recent history (much like Quayle).

        As fort speech itself, I’ve had friends and family calling me from around the US commenting on his specifics for what Change means and all of them agree with Obama; mind you many of these individuals are independents and republicans. He also tugged at their heartstrings telling us this campaign has never been about him, but rather about us.

        When McCain attacks Obama for being a popular speaker, he’s attacking Millions of Americans. That message came across clear to many Americans… but McCain just doesn’t get it.  

        • gouko787 says:

          And what is funny, in most cases those that don’t get it, and their children, will benefit most if Obama is elected.

        • BlueCat says:

          Better ratings than the Olympic Opening Ceremonies and even the American Idol finale (thank God for that and credit to the American people).  How often does anything political get that kind of rating?

          One of my favorite moments was when one of the ordinary guy speakers, Barney Smith, finished his story and the whole stadium started chanting Barney! Barney!  That will be a moment he will NEVER forget and neither will I. To be part of something that incredibly sweet, that amazing, for another human being, an ordinary hard working average guy, NOT a celebrity, was priceless.  

      • Libertad says:

        I don’t deny there were 75k folks there, but 1 in 10 seats were not occupied. Take the unfilled boxes (more then a few were blackened) and the nose bleed sections like the southeastern area (guy waving the flag that was put up on the screen) had massive empty sections.

        Still thousands of delegates, media and 1st responders filled the place (hallways and the field).

        When the main speakers came up (check the videos yourself), no one starting wave or chants could get traction. Even after as we exited someone tried to get U-S-A going to no avail.

        It just said to me that there was not the fire and passion that I expected.

        • Go Blue says:

          And I wish you weren’t a liar.

          The wave occurred when people were not speaking. We chanted USA and Yes We Can during several portions of the main speeches.  Everyone from Gore, Richardson, Biden to McCain received standing ovations with lots of chants.

          And that’s the end of the conversation since you’re not interested in discussing the speech, but rather trying to find some inconsequential aspect (a made up one at that) to ridicule.

          I can’t wait to see how pathetic the Republican Con is going to be. How many Republicans are skipping it all together including our very Bob Schaffer?  Don’t tell me about empty seats when McCain can’t even give away tickets to his event.

        • ThillyWabbit says:

          The Secret Service says 84,000 people were scanned in. You’re either a liar or a moron.

          • Libertad says:

            You know support folk, those that served food, cleaned the trash thown all about by insensative attendees, directed people to sections, etc…

            Heck the SS probably is including the local cops too … they need to show all they were on top of it.

            p.s. It was disgusting that no one was there to assist the elderly and differently abled. I was shocked to be treated as if I was at the slaughterhouse or a political cattle call.

            Again, speech was good, not great and I wanted great.

            • lildem'83 says:

              They made amazing accommodations.  They had golf carts to escort us threw the lines.  They had the front light rail cars reserved and let us off at the Investco field stop.  You are flat wrong about the claim of no assistance.  The ADA act was passed by Dems. Specifically Tom Harkin. Shame on you.  

        • parsingreality says:

          or getting overpriced water.

          You are such an idiot.  

          And BTW, if this was such a bad speech, can you give an example of a good or great one that we might be familiar with?

          You are such an idiot.  Oh, sorry, my autopilot is stuck.  

    • One Queer Dude says:

         You’re probably more inspired by Sarah Palin.  Go back to your anti-labor ballot initiatives.

    • DUDem says:

      Quite frankly who the hell cares if the wave was successful or not.  I did not partake in the wave and that doesn’t mean I was uninspired I just don’t really think that its fun.  I also did not do a lot of chanting of Obama’s name.  

      A lot of people were concerned that having it at Invesco and having all of us there would be “putting on too much show” and all that crap, what do you think those people say about people doing the wave?

      I thought the audience was very respectful and inspired.  I was in nosebleed and they had to close our section at about the time Gore finished speaking because it was too full.  There were also many, many people trying to get tickets that originally hadn’t been able to.  Empty seats were not due to a lack of enthusiasm.

      Are you judging the success of Obama’s speech by whether or not the wave took off?  Come on.

      • pueblogrouch says:

        I was in nosebleed section 513 which was full before anyone I wanted to hear came on. Probably just before Richardson. The wave was extremely successful at around 4 pm. I’m a baseball fan and there ain’t no wave in baseball as far as I’m concerned or at the DNC. The entire thing was fantastic. I have never in my 70 plus years waved a flag, but I did on Thursday. So much for the cynical.

        My son, who told me in January that he could never vote for Obama, called me on Friday morning and said he thought the speech was incredible. He’s now converted.

        Miricles never cease.

  2. gouko787 says:

    The speech as far as delivery and design was exceptional.  The message was what made it special.

    TRUTH

    The 3 points you listed are one place he did that, but he did it through out the entire thing.

    Not just get off foreign oil, get off all oil.

    They say they are after the terrorists but they are not focused where they are at.

    Being the President is not about the man, it’s about the United States of America.

    On and on and on…

    If we carry the truth to our neighbors as he laid it out he will win.

    It is up to us.

  3. ChrisCooper says:

    I don’t understand why people who should know better keep repeating this nonsense about nuclear needing to be “part of the mix” in our nation’s energy policy.  Nuclear makes ZERO sense in terms of national security, economics or climate change.

    In two articles published this month, I discuss how higher grades of uranium will soon be depleted, so much so that by 2050 the carbon inputs required to enrich lower grades of uranium to fuel-grade levels will require the nuclear energy sector to emit as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of electricity generated as today’s gas-fired power plants – and that is assuming current levels of nuclear generation.  

    And until we run our cars on electricity, nuclear power will do exactly NOTHING to diminish our dependence on foreign oil (and even when we DO have electric cars, we will still need to turn to foreign supplies of uranium).

    It’s nonsense.

    • Precinct854 says:

      Okay… Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this post about Obama’s Speech?  Did he mention nuclear power?  I’ll write a diary about nuclear power in Colorado so you’ll have somewhere to comment, but dude, off topic much?

      • RedGreen says:

        David mentions nuclear power in his summation up top. Chris was responding to that.

      • ChrisCooper says:

        …really embarrassing for you.

        Did you read the post at all?

        Here’s a refresher.  David says, “Including nuclear power in his list of what technologies we will use. Definitely a necessary oiece of the puzzle (look at France) but not a popular one.”

      • BlueCat says:

        as something to look at as part of a new energy  economy and I have no objection per se.  That is Obama’s strength.  He is a practical let’s look at everything, lets work together, let’s hammer out the best deals we can to get things done guy.  No sacred cows.  No slavish devotion to this or that ideology or ivory tower theory.

        That’s what we’ve had with the social conservatives on the one hand and the neocons on the other with the plain old corporate greed barons playing both those groups for all they’re worth to line their pockets at our expense and the expense of the lives and limbs of our troops.  I say, you go Barack!  you look at every damn thing from every damn angle.  that’s what a responsible leader SHOULD do.

        McCain can’t be that kind of leader because he has sold his soul to certain special interests on the right and the price is that certain things can’t even be on the table in a McCain administration.  You think he really wanted that social conservative light weight he didn’t know at all as his running mate?

        Maverick, my ass.   Sometimes being defiant and behaving badly doesn’t make you a maverick so much as it makes you pain in the ass jerk.  To get what he wants now he has been happy to pander by voting with Bush 100% of the time in 2008, to fawn all over the religious right “agents of intolerance” and change his, “maverick” stand on issue after issue.  All he wants is to be President now. He’s too old and worn out to fight for the high ground anymore, if he ever really did as a pol, if it ever was more than “reform” lip service.  Look at the company he keeps.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      Chris – Yes, breeder reactors have another set of problems. But the thing is, if we take a systemic approach nuclear can be a gigantic part of the solution.

      854 – Obama listed nuclear in his speech.

      • ChrisCooper says:

        Why should we go about spending time, money and energy trying to make nuclear work when it makes no sense?  If we had NO OTHER solutions, maybe.  But why does everyone insist on jerry-rigging a technology that makes no sense economically, ecologically or common??

        Congress lavishes the nuclear industry with expensive subsidies, including $13 billion worth of loan guarantees covering up to 80 percent of project costs, $3 billion in R&D, $2 billion of insurance against delays (ironically, taxpayers footing the bill even for legitimate opposition to nuclear projects in their communities), $1.3 billion in tax breaks for decommissioning, an extra 1.8 Вў/kWh in operating subsidies for the first 8 years a nuclear plant is in operation (equivalent to about $842 per installed kW), funding for licensing, compensation for project delays for the first six reactors to be developed, and limited liability for accidents (capped at $10.9 billion). These subsidies are in addition to numerous “other” benefits the nuclear industry already enjoys: free offsite security, no substantive public participation or judicial review of licensing, and payments to operators to store waste.    The subsidy established by the Price Anderson Act (which charges taxpayers for liability insurance against nuclear accidents that could kill them) alone is estimated to be worth more than the entire DOE R&D budget for most of the 1990s.  

        A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study concluded that only by imposing a carbon tax of $200 per ton on conventional power plants could advanced nuclear reactors be cost competitive with existing conventional technologies (not to mention new renewables).   And, despite enormous government subsidy, nuclear plants still suffer from a host of other inescapable challenges related to waste disposal, land use, water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, safety, and security.  

        Any rational investor, regulator, and citizen would choose instead to invest in the deployment of technologies that require little to no energy inputs to harness free and clean fuels widely available in the United States and throughout the world.  Policymakers should peak beyond the smoke-and-mirrors used to obscure the obvious advantages of renewable technologies and the obvious costs of nuclear systems.  Any effective response to electricity demand in world facing climate change involves enormous expansion in our use of renewable technologies and a steady abandonment of nuclear power.  

        • DavidThi808 says:

          all powered by nuclear energy. I’m not saying we should go all nuclear tomorrow like France and our Navy. I am saying it should be on the table and should be fully & fairly evaluated.

          • The realist says:

            The billions of dollars in tax subsidies to the industry, plus the fact that the American people shoulder huge costs for clean-up of existing environmental disasters (even in Colorado! — take a look at the Superfund site in Fremont County, thanks to the Cotter Corporation uranium mill), is proof.  The question is, can nuclear power ever be cost-effective without all the subsidies and other public costs?  The industry and the federal government have had the opportunity since the 1950’s to prove that it can be cost-effective — but it has never happened.  

            • DavidThi808 says:

              Like our military in the middle east?

              Can we make coal go without subsidies, like make it pay for the damage to the environment and the people it kills from it’s emissions?

              Yes, let’s put them all on a level playing field.

              • The realist says:

                If the full cost of each energy source is required to be a part of the economics of that energy source, we might learn some interesting things.  For example, for non-transportation home-energy use, we might learn that de-centralized sources such as solar, wind and using biomass or other alternative fuel sources would be most cost-effective.  And for transportation energy needs, the jury is still out as to what the most cost-effective longterm solution will be.  And there is absolutely no question that energy conservation is the most cost-effective, least-tapped energy source.

            • parsingreality says:

              And took the 1970’s progressive position that anything nuclear other than medicine is bad.

              I’ve come around.  Not just out of expediency, but the fact that we have learned a hell of a lot about safety.  I mean, we still have only one absolute catastrophe and that everyone acknowledges was built on the cheap.  

              I would also offer that all of the dead and sick and tetragenic victims are probably fewer than all of the problems from burning fossil fuels.  One disaster type is concentrated and traceable, one is spread out over geography and time and hard to be sure of the cause.  

              And, to say nothing of global warming.  

              • ChrisCooper says:

                I’m not sure that pointing to the one BIG disaster in the past as confidence of safety in the future makes much sense.  Of course there is no big disaster…until there’s a big disaster.  

                But we don’t need to guess about this.  Using some of the most advanced probabilistic risk assessment tools available, an interdisciplinary team at MIT identified possible reactor failures in the U.S. and predicted that the best estimate of core damage frequency was around one every 10,000 reactor years.  In terms of the expected growth scenario for nuclear power from 2005 to 2055, the MIT team estimated that at least 4 serious core damage accidents will occur and concluded that “both the historical and probabilistic risk assessment data show an unacceptable accident frequency.  The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure … make it impossible today to make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power.”

                • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                  which is better Hi frequency-low incident cost vs. Low frequency-high incident cost.

                  Much of risk management IMO is actually risk conversion, either transforming it from one type of risk into another or converting from HiLo to LoHi.

                  Nuclear clearly has LoHi risks while coal has HiLo on its surface. (I use coal because it is the obvious substitute for electricity).  Coal has well known risk factors although great improvements have been made since the 70’s, without even considering the Climate issues.  Fossil fuels which have traditionally had a Lo/Hi risk profile should actually be considered Hi/Lo when Climate is considered.

                  This is why I think the picture on Nuclear has to be reconsidered in light of the climate issue.

                  Everyone wants solar, most want wind (all recognize that we need a better grid and storage media to use these effectively), but the 2nd law hurts all non-demand/non-local energy and while gas will fill a lot gaps, I still think Nuclear has a place

                  Though I think Nuclear has a place, I am open to your arguments.  

                  • ChrisCooper says:

                    How do you reconcile the reconsideration of nuclear in light of climate change and the evidence that, because of the diminishing quality of usable uranium, nuclear energy will emit as much carbon dioxide (lifecycle) as today’s fossil-fueled power plants?  

                    By 2025, nuclear gets you NO climate benefit. None. But it still requires consumers to take on all these additional risks including, according to MIT, the probability of 4 core meltdowns over the lifetime of the new reactors.  That’s a Faustian bargain for sure!

                    • parsingreality says:

                      …but I’m not ignorant, either.

                      The argument I hear often about using fossil fueled electricity to process the uranium sort of falls on its face when it becomes nuclear power doing the refining.  Sort of bootstrapping.  Now, granted, that means a certain percentage of the electricity becomes unavailable for consumer use, but I don’t think that’s a deal killer.

                      Considering that all of the nukes in operation in the US and many in the world were trainer models, I think their record is outstanding. And it will only get better.

                      Even if coal emissions are 100% sequestered, there is still the mining of the coal, an environmental disaster.

                      Do you have any sources on this running out of uranium?  The year 2025 is around the corner and I have a hard time thinking that the nuke business world is so cynical that would build nukes that will run out of fuel half way through their working lives.

                    • ChrisCooper says:

                      It’s not running out of fuel (there is actually plenty of uranium).  But the quality of the remaining uranium diminished as the best sources of high quality uranium are expended.

                      As for “bootstrapping” nuke energy to refine the uranium…our calculations already consider that.  The problem is not that there isn’t enough electricity to refine the uranium.  It’s that diversion of the nuclear generation toward refining of nuclear fuel decreases the net electricity available for end use per unit of carbon expended.  When you account for the lifecycle of a nuclear reactor (mining uranium, refining, construction, generating, waste storage, decomissioning), even when you use some of the generated electricity to refine the raw fuel, the carbon output per kilowatt hour generated becomes equal to today’s gas-powered plants.  So why expend all the effort for no net benefit over existing conventional methods??

                      As for risk of an accident, the MIT folks actually found that the adoption of newer technology INCREASES the likelihood of an accident from human error.  I think I’d rather trust the risk assessment of MIT scientists over your assertion that the record of nuclear reactors is “outstanding” and “Will only get better.”  Statistically, that is just nonsense.

                      All of this is explored in much greater detail by Cooper & Sovacool in “Nuclear Nonsense” in the Fall 2008 edition of the William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review (if you’re interested).  

  4. One Queer Dude says:

       My big concern throughout the primary campaign was that he would not be aggressive in responding to the right wing attacks on him.

      By raising and attacking McCain preemptively on bin Laden and al Queda, he put to rest any concern I had that he wouldn’t be tough enough!

      Some of the talking heads were critical of how it came across in the open-air stadium, and speculated that it would have been better presented in a smaller, enclosed venue.  

    • Go Blue says:

      For me, Im sick and tired of Democrats being pushed around on security when it’s been the Republicans failed policies that leave our country less safe. Im happy Obama is going to sit back and allow them to frame the debate but stick it to McCain for the failed policies of Bush. His aggressive speech in that aspect was reassuring for me.  

  5. DavidThi808 says:

    As we have people here wishing for more of each of those at the expense of the others. I’d call that a good balance.

  6. puddin says:

    It was a good speech not remarkably diffenert from the speech dozens of other Dem candidates would give.  The content has all been mentioned before and it was ok to be said again as he accepted the nomination.  

    I’m more interested in seeing it delivered. I wonder if he’ll be able to deliver? Without being influenced by all the hype, I’m less than certain.

    • RedGreen says:

      Let’s take a look at the most recent president’s speech accepting his party’s nomination. Here are some excerpts, culled from this transcript. Judge for yourself how well he’s delivered:

      I am proud to have Dick Cheney by my side.

      He is a man — he is a man of integrity and sound judgment who has proven that public service can be noble service.

      American will be proud to have a leader of such character to succeed Al Gore as vice president of the United States….

      Prosperity can be a tool in our hands used to build and better our country, or it can be a drug in our system dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty. Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment.

      So tonight, we vow to our nation we will seize this moment of American promise. We will use these good times for great goals.

      We will confront the hard issues, threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security, before the challenges of our time become crises for our children.

      And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country: to every man and woman, a chance to succeed; to every child, a chance to learn; and to every family, a chance to live with dignity and hope….

      We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, “Not ready for duty, sir.”

      This administration had its moment, they had their chance, they have not led. We will….

      Tonight in this hall, we resolve to be the party of — not of repose but of reform. We will write not footnotes but chapters in the American story. We will add the work of our hands to the inheritance of our fathers and mothers and leave this nation greater than we found it.

      We know the test of leadership. The issues are joined. We will strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the greatest generation and for generations to come.

      Medicare does more than meet the needs of our elderly; it reflects the values of our society. We will set it on firm financial ground and make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them.

      Social Security has been called the third rail of American politics, the one you’re not supposed to touch because it might shock you. But if you don’t touch it, you cannot fix it.

      And I intend to fix it….

      The world needs America’s strength and leadership. And America’s armed forces need better equipment, better training and better pay.

      We will give our military the means to keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more: a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect.

      A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming….

      If my opponent had been at the moon launch, it would have been a risky rocket scheme.

      If he had been there when Edison was testing the light bulb, it would have been a risky anti-candle scheme.

      And if he had been there when the Internet was invented…

      He now leads — he now leads the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but the only thing he has to offer is fear itself….

      I don’t have enemies to fight. I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect….

      I’ve been where the buck stops in business and in government. I’ve been a chief executive who sets an agenda, sets big goals, and rallies people to believe and achieve them. I am proud of this record, and I am prepared for the work ahead….

      Behind every goal I’ve talked about tonight is a great hope for our country. A hundred years from now this must not be remembered as an age rich in possession and poor in ideals.

      Instead, we must usher in an era of responsibility….

      In a responsibility era, each of us has important tasks, work that only we can do. Each of us is responsible to love and guide our children and to help a neighbor in need. Synagogues, churches and mosques are responsible, not only to worship, but to serve. Corporations are responsible to treat their workers fairly and to leave the air and waters clean.

      And our nation’s leaders our responsible to confront problems, not pass them onto others.

      And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, that president himself must be responsible….

      I believe true leadership is a process of addition, not an act of division.

      I will not attack a part of this country because I want to lead the whole of it….

      We are now the party of ideas and innovation, the party of idealism and inclusion, the party of a simple and powerful hope….

      My friend, the artist Tom Lea of El Paso, Texas, captured the way I feel about our great land, a land I love. He and his wife, he said, “Live on the east side of the mountain. It’s the sunrise side, not the sunset side. It is the side to see the day that is coming, not to see the day that has gone.”

      Americans live on the sunrise side of the mountain, the night is passing, and we’re ready for the day to come.

      God bless. God bless America.

  7. puddin says:

    Bush did deliver?  What an odd comparison.  

    Besides, this isn’t about partisan politics.  This is about Obama delivering on his campaign promises.  I’m guessing you think Obama will deliver.  I’m saying I’m uncertain, even doubtful.  

    • RedGreen says:

      I’m saying, judge the candidate, not the details in the speech. Even the most specific proposals can be swept aside by events, so you want a candidate who has demonstrated the judgment and smarts to deal with what happens instead.

      Why is it an odd comparison to compare one president’s delivery with another’s intentions? There aren’t a lot of apt comparisons for the questions you asked.

      I’m also saying, when a nominee delivers a speech, there’s not much pushing back except pundit expectations and analysis. Actually trying to deliver, you get Congress, the courts, popular movements and opinion, unforeseen events, and your own administration’s limited time, resources and talent.

      No nominee has ever delivered fully on the promises of his speech, but some (like Bush) have fallen far, far short. It’s like he’s describing the Bizarro Bush Administration. I expect Obama to hew closer to his stated purpose and possibilities.

    • Ralphie says:

      Are YOU saying that worrying about the ease of delivering is a reason to vote against someone?

      We’ve had eight years of lies, bullshit, and (at best) inaction.  I’d much rather turn the reigns over to someone who aims high, even if ultimately they end up hitting a little low.

    • redstateblues says:

      I understand your doubts, and your uncertainties. I was in attendance on Thursday, and I realized that what Obama is promising is a lofty goal. But I think when America is called to lofty goals, we have the ability to meet them. If he can get even half of the things he is trying to accomplish done in 4 years, then I would say his term was a rousing success.

      Also, more personally, I wanted to know what your reaction to Hillary Clinton’s speech earlier this week. I thought it was very inspiring, but I wanted to know what you thought, and did it convince you to vote for Obama? I ask because of our previous conversation regarding the issue about 2 weeks ago.

      • puddin says:

        I was confident she would do what she needed to do for the party and she did. I, on the other hand, cannot support the party’s nominee so I quit the party.  I became one of the growing legions of unaffiliated.  

        Also, I don’t consider it Hillary’s responsibility to get me to support Obama.  That is his responsibility.  If he had asked Hillary to be VP I would have been on board.  But he covered his political ass by asking Biden much like GWB picked Dick Chaney for VP.  I call that bad judgment rather than new politics.

        • redstateblues says:

          Hillary’s job either. She did a hell of a job though. And I respect your decision to leave the party, though I still hope you’ll vote in the election, and maybe for some of the other Democrats if not Obama.

  8. DrewKerin says:

    I zeroed in on this point right away:

    He promised better pay for teachers, but then tied that to greater accountability of those teachers. This is one of the two key things we must address to fix our schools – and he listed the unpopular part with the popular.

    DavidThi808  Sat Aug 30, 2008

    It is not that it is a bad goal, but I’ve heard too many politicians use, or rather misuse, it.  Frankly, a president, governor, senator, or congressman have no role in what a teacher gets paid in an individual school district.  State legislators have an indirect role based on how much they allocate to public school each year.

    It just gets tiresome hearing people, from either party, running for office and promising to pay teachers more money.  They are not in a position to make good on that promise.

    I would have rather heard him say he would scrap the Bush-Kennedy NCLB, or eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.

  9. Gilpin Guy says:

    the goal of reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.  It had a John Kennedy “Man on the Moon in ten years” commitment quality.  If talking about drilling offshore can reduce oil prices based on speculation then telling the oil suppliers that we aren’t going to need your product in ten years can also have a effect on how we are perceived as customers.

    I went with my 23 year old son and he and I got a chance to see Gore from about ten feet away.  After the event, we walked down the Platte Valley bike path to the Alameda light rail and it was wonderful to watch the bike riders go by with their American flag souvenirs tucked on the back of their bikes.  We enjoyed being in the stadium together and it was a moment to see my son understand that politics is about hope as much as it is about cynicism.

     

    • Car 31 says:

      The timeline of ten years was powerful because it not only clarified a commitment but invoked Kennedy’s rhetoric.

      I also enjoyed hearing a candidate say that we can protect the 2nd Admendment and still ensure guns aren’t in classrooms.

      Inspiring speech, expectaions were way high, I’d give it four stars and two thumbs up.

      On a side note, the security was lax (saw no tickets being scanned but heard plains clothes SService agents were pervasive) and the single entrance for the public was a silly way to manage the crowds.  

  10. Ray Springfield says:

    I managed to get a ticket thanks to Mike Hamrick, the Arapahoe County chair.

    I’m very grateful to him.

    Obama’s speech hit a home run. The talkiing head political pundits all agreed so as well.

    Even the right wing pundits begrudgingly said that he did very well.

    The wave lasted 3 to 4 rotations around the stadium. This far exceeds any waves I’ve seen at Bronco games. The unfilled seats should be blamed ont the combined campaign  for the biased and unfair method that they chose to distribute tickets. I know of dozens of supporters, and about a half dozen Colorado convention delegates that were turned away by the combined campaign. Greg at the combined campaign specifically sent me a very obnoxious reply.

    Denver and Arapahoe County were given bad seating selections regarding the view. This may not have been deliberate.  

    A speech of this nature shouldn’t be a policy wonk speech.

    The best attack on McCain was the McCain says that he will follow  bin Laden to the gates of hell, but in reality he won’t follow him to the cave he lives in.

    Only Republican supporters of the neocon agenda would claim that this speech didn’t inpire. They would have said that under any circumstances.

  11. bhickey says:

    I did not watch the speech. No reason to. Visit http://www.obamafactsheet.com to read the truth about what he stands for and believes in.

  12. DrewKerin says:

    Tom Brokaw said he had to fly to Bozeman, Montana, after the DNC.  While he was there, a guy said to him, “Did you hear Obama’s speak? That was quite a speech!  He promised just about everything!”

    One of the pundits on the program chimed in with “It was 25 minutes of promises and two minutes on how he was going to do it.”  

    While Obama is definitely a compelling orator, both the media and public are getting wary to the idea that his speeches lack specifics.

    As enthralled as many were by the speech, it is now fading from the scene in lieu of Hurricane Gustav, the RNC, and John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin.

    As I’ve indicated before, what is going to turn this election is the three presidential debates.  The first one will probably be the most pivotal.

    • RedGreen says:

      What is that, today’s talking point? You’re the fourth Polster today to bring that up with the same kind of lame example. This didn’t occur to any of you on, say, Friday?

      It was a convention speech called “The American Promise,” not a 600-page budget proposal with attached flow charts and project management documentation. If you cared to find out, the Obama campaign has detailed proposals. And no, I’m not going to look it up for you.

      On the same note, I think it’s really disappointing how John McCain’s introduction of Sarah Palin didn’t include his specific plan to bring peace to the Middle East. As enthralled as many were by his introduction, it just doesn’t stand up to history because he refused to resolve, in excruciating detail, the intractable Palestinian problem. He didn’t say who he would nominate to be secretary of Housing and Urban Development either. Really too bad. I guess John McCain hopes to coast on vague “themes” and “generalities,” rather than specify everything he’s going to do, how he’s going to do it, and how he’ll pay for it.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.