PDA

View Full Version : Bill Clinton's Speech



Eastside Scott
08-28-2008, 08:40 AM
Maybe I missed it, but I did not see a thread for this. What did everyone think of Bill Clinton's speech last night?

I have to say, in all fairness, he did a great job. Clinton speaking at the DNC is like Shatner speaking at a Star Trek convention, so crowd reaction is not a good measure. He could have done armpit farts for 20 minutes and gotten 20 standing ovations. But the speech itself did everything that people said they wanted Hillary's speech to do. It showed Obama support, and spelled out exactly why. He gave multiple reasons to support Obama. He also defused the possible tension/hypocrisy by saying right near the begining "even though my candidate didn't win". I thought it was a great speech and I am not a Clinton fan.

Love him or hate him, the guy can work a room. Always has been able to, probably always will be able to. There was a short discussion in another thread where I said that Hillary would be better served by a McCain presidency because 8 years from now she is out of the running. One of the reasons I gave when asked was that it gives Bill 8 years to do something to really screw things up. Barring that happening, the main reason she might still have a chance 8 years from now is also Bill. As long as he doesn't really step on his you-know-what, there is no reason to believe the general love for him will recede.

ari1013
08-28-2008, 08:52 AM
Honestly, I didn't think it was one of his better speeches, but he definitely delivered.

DenButsu
08-28-2008, 09:03 AM
I thought it was very, very solid. He did exactly what he needed to do, which was to unequivocally and repeatedly express his support for Obama (and opposition to McCain), and to include in his support for Obama 1) support for him as Commander-in-Chief, and 2) support for him as being a candidate similar to who he was in 1992, when he then proceeded to oversee 8 years of peace and prosperity. I also thought it dove-tailed pretty nicely with Hillary's speech from the night before.

And then after Biden's speech, Obama put the cherry on top by saying Clinton reminded us what it was like to have a president who "put people first". Using Bill's own words to praise his presidency. I expect more praise for both Clintons in his big speech.


But the best speech of the night belonged to John Kerry. He gave the best speech of his career (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=05udZa68P4U&eurl=http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/) (not that that's necessarily setting a high bar, but outshining Bill Clinton and Joe Biden is nothing to sneer at).

I think Kerry will be competing with Biden on the campaign trail for attack dog numero uno.

Eastside Scott
08-28-2008, 09:11 AM
I thought it was very, very solid. He did exactly what he needed to do, which was to unequivocally and repeatedly express his support for Obama (and opposition to McCain), and to include in his support for Obama 1) support for him as Commander-in-Chief, and 2) support for him as being a candidate similar to who he was in 1992, when he then proceeded to oversee 8 years of peace and prosperity. I also thought it dove-tailed pretty nicely with Hillary's speech from the night before.

And then after Biden's speech, Obama put the cherry on top by saying Clinton reminded us what it was like to have a president who "put people first". Using Bill's own words to praise his presidency. I expect more praise for both Clintons in his big speech.


But the best speech of the night belonged to John Kerry. He gave the best speech of his career (http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=05udZa68P4U&eurl=http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/) (not that that's necessarily setting a high bar, but outshining Bill Clinton and Joe Biden is nothing to sneer at).

I think Kerry will be competing with Biden on the campaign trail for attack dog numero uno.

See I was actually a little put off by the whole "Praise McCain for 10 seconds, bash him into the ground for 10 minutes" strategy that everyone used, but especially Kerry used. I agree he will be a good attack dog, but there is another whole thread bouncing around here that says the Rs are the only ones who do negative campaigning. The term attack dog is not generally viewed as a positive.

To me it is disingenuous to says "Senator McCain is a great friend of mine, and a great man" and then proceed to try to obliterate him for the rest of the speech. Would you accept that from a friend? If one of your friends came up to you and said "I love you like a brother..." could he then spend the next 20 minutes talking smack about you, your mother, your ancestry, your reported flair for sex with zoo animals, etc and then have everything be OK because of that first sentence? I know the point of the approach is to say "we're not going negative, we praised the man and attacked the candidate", but are we all that stupid? The man, the candidate, the Senator, the husband, the father, the citizen, the war hero, the Republican, they are all the same guy.

ari1013
08-28-2008, 09:22 AM
that's how an attack works. McCain always starts out with "I'm not accusing Barack Obama of being unpatriotic. What I am accusing him of is _____________"

Eastside Scott
08-28-2008, 09:34 AM
that's how an attack works. McCain always starts out with "I'm not accusing Barack Obama of being unpatriotic. What I am accusing him of is _____________"

Exactly, that is my point. As long as you agree that it is an attack we are on the same page. Many here argue that only the McCain camp "attacks" while the Obama camp merely "speaks the truth".

It sounds like we agree that both camps attack, and that is what both should be doing.

SmthBluCitrus
08-28-2008, 09:52 AM
Although it wasn't the best of Bill Clinton, an average Bill Clinton speech is still nothing to shake a stick at. I think he did a phenominal job to help rally the base and express the unity within the party.

But, I love Bill Clinton -- so I'm biased.

ink
08-28-2008, 11:09 AM
Exactly, that is my point. As long as you agree that it is an attack we are on the same page. Many here argue that only the McCain camp "attacks" while the Obama camp merely "speaks the truth".


No. I can't understand why you miss this point unless you just absolutely refuse to. Were the attacks on McCain personal? They were about decisions he has made. When Kerry pointed out that there was a Candidate McCain and a Senator McCain, he was drawing the distinction between the independent minded Senator that he used to know, and the Candidate who is running for office. He catalogued decisions that both McCain's had made.

Bill Clinton spent the majority of his speech talking about Dem values, he laid out his vision, he talked about how it was shared with Obama, Hillary, Joe Biden, and he talked clearly about the failures of the current administration's POLICIES. He mentioned McCain once in the final third of his speech. This is the link to the full text of Bill Clinton's speech (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bclintontranscript28-2008aug28,0,4997072.story?page=1). There are no personal attacks here ...


The choice is clear. The Republicans in a few days will nominate a good man who has served our country heroically and who suffered terribly in a Vietnamese prison camp. He loves his country every bit as much as we do. As a senator, he has shown his independence of right-wing orthodoxy on some very important issues. But on the two great questions of this election -- how to rebuild the American dream and how to restore America's leadership in the world -- he still embraces the extreme philosophy that has defined his party for more than 25 years. (Cheers, applause.)

And it is -- to be fair to all the Americans who aren't as hard- core Democrats as we, it's a philosophy the American people never actually had a chance to see in action fully until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and the Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades actually were implemented.

He is attacking actions and policies. The complaint about negative campaigning is that it attacks the PERSON instead of leading with ideas. Clinton led with ideas and that's what makes him such a compelling speaker. Mark Warner led with ideas and that's what made his keynote address so compelling. They are working to woo votes based on what they want to DO while in office. By contrast, the Rove machine McCain has adopted since July works to destroy people. It's a clear distinction.

Eastside Scott
08-28-2008, 11:23 AM
No. I can't understand why you miss this point unless you just absolutely refuse to. Were the attacks on McCain personal? They were about decisions he has made. When Kerry pointed out that there was a Candidate McCain and a Senator McCain, he was drawing the distinction between the independent minded Senator that he used to know, and the Candidate who is running for office. He catalogued decisions that both McCain's had made.

Bill Clinton spent the majority of his speech talking about Dem values, he laid out his vision, he talked about how it was shared with Obama, Hillary, Joe Biden, and he talked clearly about the failures of the current administration's POLICIES. He mentioned McCain once in the final third of his speech. This is the link to the full text of Bill Clinton's speech (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bclintontranscript28-2008aug28,0,4997072.story?page=1). There are no personal attacks here ...



He is attacking actions and policies. The complaint about negative campaigning is that it attacks the PERSON instead of leading with ideas. Clinton led with ideas and that's what makes him such a compelling speaker. Mark Warner led with ideas and that's what made his keynote address so compelling. They are working to woo votes based on what they want to DO while in office. By contrast, the Rove machine McCain has adopted since July works to destroy people. It's a clear distinction.

OK, I started this string saying what a great speech Clinton had. You pull a quote of mine from later when someone referenced Kerry's speech and said exactly "he will be competing with Biden for lead attack dog". Attack dog is not a term that infers a positive, above board campaign.

You are the one who refuses to budge from your positions. Someone could have said last night "I would like to kill John McCain" and you would spin it to that they meant it metaphorically and were only referencing wanting to kill his policies.

The Ds are attacking McCain, and they should. I am not bad-mouthing them for it. That is what happens. It is just completely unfair on your part to act like they are not, while the Rs are completely under the thrall of Karl Rasputin Rove and there is an evil plot afoot at every turn.

It is also unfair to continually bash me as if I am the intractable one. Again, this entire thread starts with me praising Bill Clinton's work and saying that he laid out reasons to vote FOR Obama. You then pull a quote from me out of context later in the thread and come back to an argument that is not really even hapening in this thread. The quote you pulled was in reference to Kerry's speech, and you countered with quoting Clinton's. Who is the one refusing to understand?

ink
08-28-2008, 11:28 AM
OK, I started this string saying what a great speech Clinton had. You pull a quote of mine from later when someone referenced Kerry's speech and said exactly "he will be competing with Biden for lead attack dog". Attack dog is not a term that infers a positive, above board campaign.

You are the one who refuses to budge from your positions. Someone could have said last night "I would like to kill John McCain" and you would spin it to that they meant it metaphorically and were only referencing wanting to kill his policies.

The Ds are attacking McCain, and they should. I am not bad-mouthing them for it. That is what happens. It is just completely unfair on your part to act like they are not, while the Rs are completely under the thrall of Karl Rasputin Rove and there is an evil plot afoot at every turn.

It is also unfair to continually bash me as if I am the intractable one. Again, this entire thread starts with me praising Bill Clinton's work and saying that he laid out reasons to vote FOR Obama. You then pull a quote from me out of context later in the thread and come back to an argument that is not really even hapening in this thread. The quote you pulled was in reference to Kerry's speech, and you countered with quoting Clinton's. Who is the one refusing to understand?

You need to chill out about what I do or don't do when responding to you in this forum. If you have a problem with people responding to your posts, don't post. I respond to all posters, so don't think you are getting any kind of unusual attention. I disagree with you and I back it up. I'm not going to get into who won't budge because that's just silly. You talked about both Clinton and Kerry, so I talked about both of them. You also talked generally about attacking politics, and I responded VERY CLEARLY about what two politicians said. I showed very clearly that Clinton made only one reference to McCain in his speech. Clinton was not personal in his attacks. You have not disproved that. Please stick to the point.

In my post, there was ONE line about how you are refusing to see the point about attack politics. One. If you need to continue talking about this, do it through PM's to me or to DenButsu. You are not being wronged at all. You are being challenged. Again, PM's are the way to go here because this is a personal side discussion that is off topic.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-28-2008, 11:50 AM
Exactly, that is my point. As long as you agree that it is an attack we are on the same page. Many here argue that only the McCain camp "attacks" while the Obama camp merely "speaks the truth".

It sounds like we agree that both camps attack, and that is what both should be doing.

the difference in the "unpatriotic" attacks and the speeches last night was that every speech gave a reason why McCain wasn't the guy, or had bad judgment, based strictly on policy. They gave examples of every policy they disagree with and why. They weren't putting down the person. They were calling out the policies. They used people who know him well and are/were supposed friends, but called out policies and ideas.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-28-2008, 11:53 AM
No. I can't understand why you miss this point unless you just absolutely refuse to. Were the attacks on McCain personal? They were about decisions he has made. When Kerry pointed out that there was a Candidate McCain and a Senator McCain, he was drawing the distinction between the independent minded Senator that he used to know, and the Candidate who is running for office. He catalogued decisions that both McCain's had made.

Bill Clinton spent the majority of his speech talking about Dem values, he laid out his vision, he talked about how it was shared with Obama, Hillary, Joe Biden, and he talked clearly about the failures of the current administration's POLICIES. He mentioned McCain once in the final third of his speech. This is the link to the full text of Bill Clinton's speech (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bclintontranscript28-2008aug28,0,4997072.story?page=1). There are no personal attacks here ...



He is attacking actions and policies. The complaint about negative campaigning is that it attacks the PERSON instead of leading with ideas. Clinton led with ideas and that's what makes him such a compelling speaker. Mark Warner led with ideas and that's what made his keynote address so compelling. They are working to woo votes based on what they want to DO while in office. By contrast, the Rove machine McCain has adopted since July works to destroy people. It's a clear distinction.

:clap::clap: completely agree. Those were attacks on policy last night. Not a person. That was an attack on conservativism/Bush/Rove/current McCain. Every one of those speeches laid out the stark differences in the status quo policies of McCain and their alternative.

No one questioned patriotism, personality, family, friends, bank accounts, etc. That was a direct attack on policy all the way around.

NotVeryOriginal
08-28-2008, 05:09 PM
Lol at Michelle Obama and her fake *** grin during the entire thing. I think I even caught her half yawning at one one point.

Good speech from Clinton, though Im definately seeing more of the 'extreme or not on my team' from the Dems, which is wierd since its normally the fundies and wall street reps playing that game.

DenButsu
08-28-2008, 07:58 PM
Lol at Michelle Obama and her fake *** grin during the entire thing.

So, NVO, are you psychic? Can you read her mind? Just howTF is it that you think you can judge her smile as being "fake"?

And more to the point of common sense, whyinTF is it that you think she wouldn't be sincerely happy?!? Even if hard feelings existed, there was NOTHING about Bill's (or Hillary's) speech that would give her any reason to be anything other than thrilled. They both threw their full, unconditional support behind Obama, and they both went after McCain. Why would she not be happy about that?


This type of thinking is what happens when smears precede reality, and instill FALSE preconceived notions in the minds of people who are willing to believe them simply because they want to believe the worst.

ari1013
08-28-2008, 10:00 PM
Exactly, that is my point. As long as you agree that it is an attack we are on the same page. Many here argue that only the McCain camp "attacks" while the Obama camp merely "speaks the truth".

It sounds like we agree that both camps attack, and that is what both should be doing.
oh no, I definitely agree with you -- my problem is that I think that it would be better if neither party did that and we actually had a campaign strictly on the issues for once.

NotVeryOriginal
08-29-2008, 12:20 AM
So, NVO, are you psychic? Can you read her mind? Just howTF is it that you think you can judge her smile as being "fake"?

And more to the point of common sense, whyinTF is it that you think she wouldn't be sincerely happy?!? Even if hard feelings existed, there was NOTHING about Bill's (or Hillary's) speech that would give her any reason to be anything other than thrilled. They both threw their full, unconditional support behind Obama, and they both went after McCain. Why would she not be happy about that?


This type of thinking is what happens when smears precede reality, and instill FALSE preconceived notions in the minds of people who are willing to believe them simply because they want to believe the worst.

Id rebutle in context but I got a feeling from your previous posts that youd just pick it apart and slant it to fit your skewed view, then do some more selective moding to make sure you dont have to have an intellegent conversation with someone who disagrees with you, but instead use subversive methods of attack whilst calling out any reply with threat of bans and infractions.

No Im smarter than that, unfortunatly for you. Whilst what ever gave you this overwhelming sense of prestige over the underlings must have been traumatizing, Ill leave you to think you are better than me cause I got better shiz to do in life that partake in an E-war. With that, by original post stands.

DenButsu
08-29-2008, 12:59 AM
Id rebutle in context but I got a feeling from your previous posts that youd just pick it apart and slant it to fit your skewed view, then do some more selective moding to make sure you dont have to have an intellegent conversation with someone who disagrees with you, but instead use subversive methods of attack whilst calling out any reply with threat of bans and infractions.

No Im smarter than that, unfortunatly for you. Whilst what ever gave you this overwhelming sense of prestige over the underlings must have been traumatizing, Ill leave you to think you are better than me cause I got better shiz to do in life that partake in an E-war. With that, by original post stands.

Nice dodge, but any longtime conservative (and rational) poster in this forum should know that, while I may not have always succeeded, I've always bent over backwards to keep my modding of this forum as objective and fair as I possibly can, and that I've frequently requested moderation from more conservative mods to ensure that this forum is being modded fairly (other mods will vouch for that - it happens in the mod forum, so most of you can't see it).

ink
08-29-2008, 01:19 AM
I loved the fact that Obama paid tribute to Clinton in his speech. If it wasn't for the scandals during Clinton's tenure, he would probably be looked upon as the best president in post-war America. The competition could only come from Kennedy and Reagan.

NotVeryOriginal
08-29-2008, 01:42 AM
Nice dodge, but any longtime conservative (and rational) poster in this forum should know that, while I may not have always succeeded, I've always bent over backwards to keep my modding of this forum as objective and fair as I possibly can, and that I've frequently requested moderation from more conservative mods to ensure that this forum is being modded fairly (other mods will vouch for that - it happens in the mod forum, so most of you can't see it).

Im not conservative, but Im sure Im to the right (of a BS spectrum to begin with) of you. Just like GWB is to the left of Hitler, that doesnt make GWB a liberal.


Keep the attacks coming

DenButsu
08-29-2008, 04:41 AM
Im not conservative, but Im sure Im to the right (of a BS spectrum to begin with) of you. Just like GWB is to the left of Hitler, that doesnt make GWB a liberal.


Keep the attacks coming

You know what, man? If you're going to accuse me of "attacking" you, you'd better back that up. In NO WAY did I say anything to you that could reasonably be construed as an "attack". I did challenge your baseless assertion that Michelle Obama's smile during Clinton's speech was "fake", and asked you:

-Just howTF is it that you think you can judge her smile as being "fake"?

and

-whyinTF is it that you think she wouldn't be sincerely happy?!?

and

-They both threw their full, unconditional support behind Obama, and they both went after McCain. Why would she not be happy about that?


...questions that you avoided answering by falsely accusing me of attacking you and (again, baselessly) accusing me of abusing my mod powers.

If anything, it is YOU who has attacked ME, and not vice versa. :eyebrow:

NotVeryOriginal
08-29-2008, 08:10 AM
If you cant see he fake smiling then I CBA, but nothing negative about the holy Obamas can be said otherwise thy orator must be a fundie conservative scum. IMO she was merely posing cause she knew a camera was on her. She has every right not to like Billy Bob, especially after the campaign Hill ran, but what ever reason she had, she was still fake smiling.

As for 'attacks'

"This type of thinking is what happens when smears precede reality, and instill FALSE preconceived notions in the minds of people who are willing to believe them simply because they want to believe the worst."

"Nice dodge, but any longtime conservative (and rational) poster in this forum should know that...."

Ill give it to you, it isnt the troll heavy and in the face vulgarity of some, but I realise a mod couldnt be seen with such a direct route, no you go the more implicit route, building up the straw man in one post, then using the power of association in the next you 'attack'

Again, any good mod simply wouldnt have replied or would have edited the post, but you will continue to your subversive attack

ari1013
08-29-2008, 08:11 AM
Im not conservative, but Im sure Im to the right (of a BS spectrum to begin with) of you. Just like GWB is to the left of Hitler, that doesnt make GWB a liberal.


Keep the attacks coming
And Hitler gets played again. Congrats DB, you won the argument.

ari1013
08-29-2008, 08:13 AM
Again, any good mod simply wouldnt have replied or would have edited the post, but you will continue to your subversive attack


A little paranoid are we? It doesn't matter who edits a post, the post will record that it's been changed.

NotVeryOriginal
08-29-2008, 08:17 AM
And Hitler gets played again. Congrats DB, you won the argument.

WTF is that supposed to mean? How much more right can you get than Hitler? Wow you are sumit else....:rolleyes:

You either didnt get my post or YOU are grasping at a strawman too. This is what I hate about the Obamessiah movement, your just as crazy as the fundies and neocons, you have no sense of humour and will show no comprimise because you are right 100% of the time, logic and probability be damn.

I cant wait for what ever flamebaiting reply you got.

NotVeryOriginal
08-29-2008, 08:20 AM
A little paranoid are we? It doesn't matter who edits a post, the post will record that it's been changed.

No, if he thought what I had to say was the mad verbal assault of a fundie attack dog all he had to do was edit it, instead he calls me out and tries to pull his strings. Just cause hes a mod doesnt mean Im gunna kneel down and suck his manhood.

ari1013
08-29-2008, 08:28 AM
No, if he thought what I had to say was the mad verbal assault of a fundie attack dog all he had to do was edit it, instead he calls me out and tries to pull his strings. Just cause hes a mod doesnt mean Im gunna kneel down and suck his manhood.
Oh I get what you're saying now. I thought you had meant he could edit out the part of his post that you didn't like. My bad.

As for the other post, any comparison to Hitler for any candidate is too over the top to be considered rationally.

NotVeryOriginal
08-29-2008, 09:07 AM
Oh I get what you're saying now. I thought you had meant he could edit out the part of his post that you didn't like. My bad.

As for the other post, any comparison to Hitler for any candidate is too over the top to be considered rationally.

My comparison was that if we go by (the flawed) poltical spectrum it goes

Marx .....DB.......Obama...........centre.............. ......GWB...............Hitler
............................................me.... ...............................................


I was make a comparison of be being to the right of him, just like GWB is to the left of uncle Adolf, that doesnt make Dubya a lefieand it doesnt make me a righty. It wasnt a Hitler = Obama/McBush

DenButsu
08-29-2008, 09:37 AM
So what exactly are you saying, NVO - that you want me to censor your posts when I disagree with them instead of challenging the ideas you've expressed in them?

And that would be good modding?

???

NotVeryOriginal
08-29-2008, 11:58 AM
Its certainly better than flamebaiting