Log in

No account? Create an account

January 6th, 2008

[Jeralyn Merritt writes:]

Below is what Hillary said and what Obama said. Hillary's answer is issue-specific. Obama's is generalities and buzzwords.

It [is] why it has seemed to me all along Obama lacks substance as well as experience. Since I know now from reading his literature that he does have some specific plans, I'm wondering why he seems incapable of expressing them. He comes across as all promises, no specifics. I wanted to throw the tv clicker at him. We shouldn't have to do hours of research on candidates to know where they stand. Is it too much to ask for Obama to get out from behind the professor's podium and stop playing philosopher and tell us what he's going to do?


What's really most important about these debates is that the Democratic Party stands in such contrast to the Republicans.

You know, the Republicans have a totally different approach to what we need to be doing. They're not talking about the mortgage crisis and trying to solve it. They're not talking about what I fear to be a slide into recession.

They're not talking about global warming. They're not talking about science and innovation. They're not talking about what really is going to face the next president.
So, I think that we've done in our debates a much better job in actually getting out the issues that are going to be on the desk in the Oval Office when the president walks in.


Overall, actually, here's an area where I agree with Hillary: that there has been a stark contrast, generally, between the four of us and those who aren't debating with us now but were previously.

There is going to be a fundamental difference between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee: ending the politics of fear that has so dominated our political debate, making certain that we're actually listening to the American people and the struggles and hardships that they're going through.

And I think the opportunity to bring the American people together and to push back those special interests, to actually deliver on meaningful differences in their lives, that's something -- that's a prospect that I think all Democrats should be excited about.

Many of us are trying to believe Obama would be a good President if nominated. But his repeated resort to generic promises of "hope," "optimism" and "change" without specifics is just so annoying. It's one thing to go after the youth vote, it's another to treat us all like children.

Uh oh!

Hmm, maybe I should re-think my choice of Obama over Clinton: http://tinyurl.com/2p9ucl

My nomination acceptance speech

My fellow Americans,

We have come a long way since the beginning. Sweet pancake syrup on our plate. Chocolate mousse for dessert, Bailey’s Irish Cream, friendly conversation, fond memories of times gone by!

Lovable puppies, adorable kittens; watch them play! Balls of yarn, sticks and biscuits, running for pure joy; the tennis balls are sloppy but we have a can of fresh ones. Swinging and sliding in the schoolyard, flying kites in the park, graceful swans gliding across the water, cormorants with wings spread wide, ducks gently quacking, and woodpeckers going tap, tap, tap. Can we get there?

You bet we can! But only when we all work together!

Cuddly teddy bears when we are sweepy! Clean cotton sheets, warm blankets, soft pillows, and chamomile tea. But that’s not all! We can do so much more!

Children! The future! Greatness and admiration! No limit! No limit! Together there is no limit!

So I wish to wrap up by thanking this apple pie, this mug of root beer, and most of all this American flag. Thank you all, and may the Force be with you!

Latest Month

June 2016


  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:22
    In case it matters, the most recent confirmed lahar is about 500 years ago, but there were mixed reports of eruptions in the late 1800s.
  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:20
    Pretty low until you jinxed them.
  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:01
    What would you estimate the odds to be of it happening in the next 200 years?
  • 27 Jan 2014, 06:22
    Thinking about it further, I think I now understand. You're saying the WSJ is being antisemitic, not the people they're quoting.

    I don't think they'd listen to it coming from us, but a…
  • 27 Jan 2014, 06:09
    I'm not noticing it either. Seems to me they *are* being assholes to Jews, but only moreso than anybody else if we happen to be in the way. I think that's gneral-purpose assholery, not…
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel