John Amato, whose site Crooks and Liars has been such an important source of the video record and polticial commentary in the last few years, has written a cri de coeur, a call for people to vote on the issues, not personalities.
I am totally behind what he says.
"A vote for McCain equals more War.
A vote for McCain equals No universal health care.
A vote for McCain equals a continued collapsing economy.
A vote for McCain equals higher gas prices.
A vote for McCain equals no help for the housing market.
A vote for McCain equals a further erosion of woman’s rights.
A vote for McCain equals ideologue judges being placed throughout the country.
And yet, so much of political discourse ends up sounding like advertising slogans, as these Twitter generated memes echo:Sarah Palin is your new segway
is the new Barack Obama is your new bicycle.
How about listening to the man who can talk without using a Teleprompter and who can write his own speeches.
Posts
6 comments:
"...can talk without using a Teleprompter and who can write his own speeches."
Very important ... what about realizing that these are two key "qualifications" - ? All the talk about who is more "experienced" or "qualified" without first asking what certain basic qualifications really would be is driving me nuts.
Actually, he doesn't speak all that well without a teleprompter.
Uhh, ummm, 57 states, um, lipstick on a pig, um, uhhhhhh, above my paygrade, uhhh...
Hi, anonymous. I'm sorry you haven't identified yourself; I have so few commenters, I don't know who my readers are, and it's always a surprise when someone actually puts up a comment!
I think your examples actually illustrate the opposite. Someone who says "uh" may be thinking on his feet, not reading. If you look at transcripts of what he says, his sentences are grammatical, his meanings are clear, and he uses logic. He did practice law and teach for many years, so he is somewhat more coherent that the current resident of the White House.
When he mistakenly said "57 states" he was thinking of the 57 caucuses and primaries (the topic he was addressing) which include those of Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. this has been well documented, and your repetition of this as if it shows that he thinks there are 57 states is a sign that you are simply hostile to him, not that you have proof of his ignorance. Same with the lipstick remark:
"Lipstick on a pig" in the context in which he said the phrase is a direct quotation of John McCain's earlier statement on health care, when he used the same words to describe Hillary's health care plan, and, again, in context there is no doubt that he was talking about McCain's plan, and that Palin is the "lipstick." So it is shows that you are either ill-informed, malicious, or confused about syntax for you to continue to cite this as an example of Obama's lack of teleprompter proficiency.
By the way, I'm always interested in the fact that people who have something negative to say choose to do so anonymously, instead of assuming that civil dialogue is possible.
If you are interested in reading my blog, you are welcome to comment with a name, or at least a handle, so I will know if I am dealing with one "anonymous" or more than one.
I'm sorry, but I've lost a couple of friends because they couldn't accept that I wouldn't drink the kool-aid with them.
The lipstick remark showed very poor judgement. I don't think it was aimed at Palin, but a smart politician would have avoided the subject if for no other reason that the reaction would take him/ner off message for a day or two.
As for the teleprompter, check this out: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/
Thanks for replying instead of doing a drive-by. I still wish I had a handle like Joe Schmoe or Jane Schmoe instead of anonymous, but whatever.
I will look at that link.
If you really want to engage in dialogue with me about whether or not you think Obama is the right choice for president, we can do so in a civil fashion. But I'd prefer to do it on the substantive issues that concern me, such as a record of support (or not) for women's rights, workers' rights, policies aiimed at easing the economic burden on the poor, the future of the wars, relationships to lobbyists, etc. rather than teleprompter skills, lipstick jokes, or how many times someone says "um" as I think those are trivial details compared to the actual voting records and announced stances on specific issues of the two candidates left in the race who have any chance of winning.
yes, I do share my opinions and post clips that tickle my funny bone, but I work full time and this blog is not dedicated to documenting the campaign, so I don't post the blow-by-blow or go into great detail about my politics.
Considering that McCain continues to run ads (like the one I saw on TV last night) that contain several statements that are blatantly untrue about Obama and about his and Palin's record of actions, and have been documented as such by a wide variety of sources, even by former McCain supporters like Andrew Sullivan, I'd rather spend my time talking about that.
I am old enough to remember McCain's role in bailing out the crooked Savings and Loan fraudsters (the Keating Five). He has said he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, although in 2000 he supported it. He has chosen a VP who doesn't believe in science, who fires anyone who won't do what she wants, including banning books from library, and who is clearly incompetent to succeed McCain as president when he dies in office of skin cancer.
OK, I have to go to work now.
Post a Comment