Barack's Speech

[2centsworth]

It was excellent. I'll give more details tomorrow, but the delivery and the content exceeded my expectations.

One of the best speechs I've heard in a long time.

[TheTruth]

Brilliant speech. He went straight after Mccain. Can't wait until tomorrow morning. McCain better bring the heat.

[2centsworth]

The attacks on Mccain is not what I was referring to. Barack should steer clear.

[Spurminator]

(From MSNBC)

To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation: With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.

Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest - a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia - I love you so much, and I'm so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

[T Park]

Good speach but double speak quite a bit throughout.

One time he talks the same stuff he has for months about "new politics" then he would launch into attacks and old politics.

His economics was textbook liberal economic play book stuff.


Great speech, great orator.

[Spurminator]

For me, the negativity overshadowed the overall message. I don't know if it was the politically smart thing to do or not. Maybe it was, but it's not what I was looking forward to tonight.

This was a historic event in our nation's history and a chance to make a memorable, moving and uplifting statement to the country. As an independent who was hoping to be moved, I am disappointed. My vote as never hinging on this speech anyway but I was still hoping for more.

I may give it another read at some point and give a more specific critique but to be perfectly honest he lost me about 15 minutes in.

[T Park]

For me, the negativity overshadowed the overall message. I don't know if it was the politically smart thing to do or not. Maybe it was, but it's not what I was looking forward to tonight.

This was a historic event in our nation's history and a chance to make a memorable, moving and uplifting statement to the country. As an independent who was hoping to be moved, I am disappointed. My vote as never hinging on this speech anyway but I was still hoping for more.

I may give it another read at some point and give a more specific critique but to be perfectly honest he lost me about 15 minutes in.



Yeah I agree, hes been the candidate of change and hope, but tonight he was the candidate of John Kerry just more intelligent.

[Supergirl]

Obama hit hard and hit well. The best part was the simple, eloquent way he described the failure of trickle down economics:

"“It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it. For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.”

[ggoose25]

For me, the negativity overshadowed the overall message. I don't know if it was the politically smart thing to do or not. Maybe it was, but it's not what I was looking forward to tonight.

This was a historic event in our nation's history and a chance to make a memorable, moving and uplifting statement to the country. As an independent who was hoping to be moved, I am disappointed. My vote as never hinging on this speech anyway but I was still hoping for more.

I may give it another read at some point and give a more specific critique but to be perfectly honest he lost me about 15 minutes in.

I think it was a political necessity for him to hit McCain hard. I would argue that every speech up until this one was heavy on the uplifting rhetoric without the red meat. If you were looking to be inspired, go and watch some of his victory speeches after the primaries.

Tonight's speech wasn't for those looking to be uplifted, but for those skeptical to believe and trust in his ability to lead. It was about those Hillary voters scared that he would roll over like John Kerry did under the swift boat attacks.

This will go miles to building a foundation for middle class white America to feel comfortable voting for him in November.

[T Park]

Obama hit hard and hit well. The best part was the simple, eloquent way he described the failure of trickle down economics:

"“It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care. It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it. For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.”


In other words, the american dream sucks, government can fix all your problems.

[T Park]

I think it was a political necessity for him to hit McCain hard. I would argue that every speech up until this one was heavy on the uplifting rhetoric without the red meat. If you were looking to be inspired, go and watch some of his victory speeches after the primaries.

Tonight's speech wasn't for those looking to be uplifted, but for those skeptical to believe and trust in his ability to lead. It was about those Hillary voters scared that he would roll over like John Kerry did under the swift boat attacks.

This will go miles to building a foundation for middle class white America to feel comfortable voting for him in November.



Hitting people hard like that is the politics he supposedly doesn't subscribe to though....

[Spurminator]

Maybe. I think it would have been better to save the harshest attacks for the debates. This was the night to make his "I Have a Dream" type speech. There was no real theme to rally around, no memorable message to sustain until November. I thought it was very forgettable.

But we'll see what the prevailing public opinion is.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

yes, obviously without a doubt this is a great event in the history of the united states for an african american to be nominated for president. i can and will not take anything away from that one point. it was, however, a bit too theatrical for me. i think you can put any great orator in front of 75,000 people in person and millions of people around the world and hit a homerun. a couple of things he brought up that i thought were great was his commitment to better education and affordable tuition. we definitely need that. is it me or is what your employer pays a man and a woman up to the employer, themself? i really don't see how a president can enforce that or how one candidate can criticize another for that. there are other things that stuck out that didn't jive with me, but i may or may not come back to them later. a quick thing i did look up was the whole "mccain voted with bush 90%" of the time. first of all, if i'm not mistaken i thought biden said he voted with bush 95% of the time yesterday. i'm glad this convention didn't last another week, but i don't want to cloud my point with facts (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94048033). i guess "change" is the theme. speaking of "change" i guess Obamessiden is now against drilling for oil. i'm sorry.......too many facts. now on to my "quick thing" i noted above. the whole 90% deal with mccain and bush. of the missed votes in the senate; mccain is first, obama is 3rd and biden is 5th, and that was just last year. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/) that may mean nothing, but i find it somewhat interesting. i'll dig further later.

[ggoose25]

Hitting people hard like that is the politics he supposedly doesn't subscribe to though....

He didn't attack him personally. He complimented him repeatedly, and respected his patriotism. He was able to attack his policies, not his character. Respond to McCain's attacks, without getting down in the dirt with him:

"But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America."

You can and must attack your opponent's positions in order to win a campaign. But that doesn't mean you have to question his manhood, or patriotism, or try and create distractions away from the issues that affect the country like this celebrity nonsense.

[whottt]

It was an absolutely fantastic speech.


Now all he has to do is pull a golden egg out of his ass and get Santa Claus to come down my chimney and I'll actually believe he can pull off everything he promised.


All he did was tell everyone what they wanted to hear.


I'd have preferred a little better grasp of reality. We don't live in Disneyland...and only a fool thinks we ever could.

Lots of fools in that crowd.

Sorry, didn't mean to rain on everyones parade...it's just a sad fact of life that parades really do get rained on from time to time.

[ggoose25]

It was an absolutely fantastic speech.


Now all he has to do is pull a golden egg out of his ass and get Santa Claus to come down my chimney and I'll actually believe he can pull off everything he promised.


All he did was tell everyone what they wanted to hear.


I'd have preferred a little better grasp of reality. We don't live in Disneyland...and only a fool thinks we ever could.

Lots of fools in that crowd.

This has some truth to it.

[Wild Cobra]

If we get all he promises, how much will federal spending increase? Are we past double current spending now?

[ggoose25]

If we get all he promises, how much will federal spending increase? Are we past double current spending now?

Were you worried about this when the Republicans ran up the deficit with tax cuts and reckless spending for 6 years?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Were you worried about this when the Republicans ran up the deficit with tax cuts and reckless spending for 6 years?was it truly and exclusively the republicans that did this reckless spending for 6 years?

[ggoose25]

was it truly and exclusively the republicans that did this reckless spending for 6 years?

When you control the House, Senate, and Oval Office. Yes.

Where was the fiscal conservatism?

If you are going to fund a war, why insist on renewing tax cuts?

[PixelPusher]

was it truly and exclusively the republicans that did this reckless spending for 6 years?
I can't believe I just read that.

[Wild Cobra]

When you control the House, Senate, and Oval Office. Yes.

Where was the fiscal conservatism?

If you are going to fund a war, why insist on renewing tax cuts?
Tax cuts did improve the economy and added for revenue. The war is an expenditure authorized in the consitution. Social spending isn't. I agree too much was spend with earmarks, and not trying to roll back spending, but we are better of than we would be without the tax cuts. Learn about The Laffer Curve (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm).

Now I don't want to hear the lame slogan that includes "record spending." Every year is a record compared to the previous. It's the nature of inflation.

[Wild Cobra]

was it truly and exclusively the republicans that did this reckless spending for 6 years?

Also remember that it was the spending and wanting to grant illegals "amnisty" that changed the balnce of the congress. Now we have the democrats wanting to spend even more! I wonder if they will last throught this 2008 election?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

When you control the House, Senate, and Oval Office. Yes.

Where was the fiscal conservatism?

If you are going to fund a war, why insist on renewing tax cuts?


I can't believe I just read that.

i'm not saying republicans didn't spend, spend, spend. not at all. i'm asking do they solely and exclusively hold that blame? if feel if i stole a dollar, but someone steals 100 dollars we are equally guilty. now answer the question...............please.

[Mr. Peabody]

i'm not saying republicans didn't spend, spend, spend. not at all. i'm asking do they solely and exclusively hold that blame? if feel if i stole a dollar, but someone steals 100 dollars we are equally guilty. now answer the question...............please.

You may both be guilty of theft, but obviously one is a more serious offense and deserving of more punishment.

[PixelPusher]

i'm not saying republicans didn't spend, spend, spend. not at all. i'm asking do they solely and exclusively hold that blame? if feel if i stole a dollar, but someone steals 100 dollars we are equally guilty. now answer the question...............please.

Well if you want to get all "meta" about it, everyone is to blame because, in spite of the record low dissaproval rating for Congress that everyone brings up ("worse than Bush's") that just measures peoples disapproval of Congress as a whole...ask them about THEIR pork barrel sugar daddy of a Senator or Representative, and they LOVE him, and keep re-electing him(or her) over and over again. So everyone else's pork barrel spending sucks, but they think all the goodies their State/District gets is just groovy.

Everyone else's corruption is bad, but you line up to get yours when the opportunity presents itself.

[ggoose25]

Tax cuts did improve the economy and added for revenue. The war is an expenditure authorized in the consitution. Social spending isn't. I agree too much was spend with earmarks, and not trying to roll back spending, but we are better of than we would be without the tax cuts. Learn about The Laffer Curve (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm).

Now I don't want to hear the lame slogan that includes "record spending." Every year is a record compared to the previous. It's the nature of inflation.


I'm not arguing that tax cuts aren't good for the economy. I'm arguing that regardless of whether the spending is authorized by the constitution or not, the Congress has the power to control the budget. Republicans who pride themselves on fiscal conservatism wrote the budget for 6 of the past 8 years. If you increase spending on a war, then go ahead and bring in money from somewhere else to fund it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Tax cuts are beneficial for everyone, but if there isn't money to cut, then don't do it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You may both be guilty of theft, but obviously one is a more serious offense and deserving of more punishment.
there's no such thing as almost pregnant. you're either guilty or non guilty.

[ggoose25]

Oh but then again, I forgot. Congress didn't include the majority of the war spending in the regular appropriation bills. I guess it doesn't count against the deficit.

Now I'm stuck paying this off, while you and Xray get to keel over in a few years.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

in regards to people losing their homes because they can't afford them, is he referring to the not-so-above minimum wage citizen, legal or illegal, (again, let's not let facts muddy up the water) living in a $250,000+ home.........with 3+ kids, perhaps?

[Das Texan]

Tax cuts did improve the economy and added for revenue. The war is an expenditure authorized in the consitution. Social spending isn't. I agree too much was spend with earmarks, and not trying to roll back spending, but we are better of than we would be without the tax cuts. Learn about The Laffer Curve (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm).

Now I don't want to hear the lame slogan that includes "record spending." Every year is a record compared to the previous. It's the nature of inflation.

where is the fucking declaration of war?

[Das Texan]

Oh and that was a great speech.

Obama addressed every criticism that has been laid at his steps. Obama more than anything else is someone who can bring people together, can unite people for a common cause.

One of the overlying themes tonight was going out into the world and rebuilding the relationships that Bush has fucked up in the last 7 years, especially after giving the world the middle finger when going into Iraq. We do that, and things will begin to improve dramatically.

Will Obama accomplish everything he said he would? Not likely.

But if Obama can accomplish just 2 of the major things he said he would, this nation would be a hell of a lot better off.

Especially the education part.

[T Park]

Yeah keep pouring money into a government sink hole along with doing something thats never worked before in socialized medicine.

I can't wait.

[T Park]

I rewatch the speech and all i can think of with the fireworks and confetti is.

My tax dollars at work :lol

[bobbyjoe]

Yeah keep pouring money into a government sink hole along with doing something thats never worked before in socialized medicine.

I can't wait.

I'm sorry but that's absolute and utter baloney.

http://pressesc.com/01179219349_us_health_system_most_expensive_least_ effective

http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-statistics-on-health-care.html

These are the hard, cold facts about US healthcare today:

-Overall costs for the system (govt, individual, and company spending) are about double to triple that of the majority of the world's industrialized, wealthy nations. The majority of these nations DO employ universal health care based systems.

-In terms of overall quality, American healthcare scores RIDICULOUSLY poorly in every key health metric: life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and % of preventable deaths.

-Please explain to me how US Healthcare is working when it spends 2 to 3 times what other nations do and yet the outcome is very substandard in terms of quality and results.

-Good businesses don't beat their chests and remain in denial when their competitors are kicking their asses. They investigate why their systems are failing and seek to improve them. Other nations are treating healthcare MUCH MUCH more effectively than America and the statistics bear that out.

Stop repeating tired, fear mongering right wing lines and take a look at actual hard, cold reality.

There is no bigger crisis in the US today than Healthcare. Energy included. Healtcare costs as a % of GDP are absolutely exploding which is a drag on the economy and hurts the abilities of American companies to compete because so much expense has to be devoted to healthcare.

Preventive medicine is very poor in America right now which results in people not getting treatment until treatment is desperately needed and exhorbinantly expensive, which results in much overall costs to the system.

Stating we dont have a serious healtcare problem is serious denial. It's not just a poor system, it's absolutely failed and failed miserably when you look at return on investment of US health care dollars vs. return on investment of other industrialized nations.

Doctor's flat out ripping off patients with unnecessary surgeries based mainly on greed is another very, very serious problem in the US right now and a major reason for the absolute explosion in health care costs. This is one area where the private sector has failed miserably in America.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=692682

http://health.msn.com/mens-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100164538

What cleary ISNT working is the current US Healthcare system.

[timvp]

Good speech. I got tired of his uplifting messages. It was about time he swung back. He made a lot of unrealistic promises ... but then again, that's what politicians do.

I won't vote because McCain will win Texas easily but my mental vote is undecided. I'll have to wait for the debates.

[AFBlue]

It was an absolutely fantastic speech.


Now all he has to do is pull a golden egg out of his ass and get Santa Claus to come down my chimney and I'll actually believe he can pull off everything he promised.


All he did was tell everyone what they wanted to hear.


I'd have preferred a little better grasp of reality. We don't live in Disneyland...and only a fool thinks we ever could.

Lots of fools in that crowd.

Sorry, didn't mean to rain on everyones parade...it's just a sad fact of life that parades really do get rained on from time to time.

After outlining the plan for what he promised, he did state that he had a plan to pay for every cent. Whether it's true or not remains to be seen, but just when I was asking myself the "how?" question, he made the "this is how" general statement.

[AFBlue]

His attacks on McCain's policies were needed in a convention devoid of them.

Acknowledging McCain's personal qualities (courage, patriotism) and even acknowledging his tendency to break from mainstream on issues, while simultanously dismissing him as "4more years of the same" was tough, but I think he pulled it off.

Did he change my vote? Nah, but he made a lot of salient points and gave a concrete speech about his policies and McCain's policy weaknesses.

[JoeChalupa]

He did a great job and although TPark's ignorance shows through again no matter what you may think of Obama you had to give him credit for raising the bar and flying over it last night. It is on.

[101A]

-In terms of overall quality, American healthcare scores RIDICULOUSLY poorly in every key health metric: life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and % of preventable deaths.

Most of your statistics are directly attributable to lifestyle habits and choices; not access to "healthcare".

They won't change, regardless of the funding mechanism for payment of health claims.

Is it pure coincidence that over 50% of new pharmaceuticals are discovered in this country, as are the latest surgical techniques and technologies? Those eventually, of course, spread to the other healthcare systems, but if the U.S. follows those models, do we risk slowing the rate of advance?

What about doctor shortages and pay? In "successful" centralized systems, much of their savings comes directly from price controls on Doctors. Doctors in Canada, for instance, earn 40% of what their peers in the U.S. do - their system (nor Germany's, Japan's, or G. Briitain's) wouldn't work without those controls. Are we going to universally demand doctors take large pay cuts, or are we simply going to continue to let them earn equivalent salaries, but change the funding mechanism?

[101A]

Haven't checked the facts, but Wikipedia states the following about U.S. taxpayers:


the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%)

In his speech last night, Barrack repeated his promise to give a tax cut to "95%" of working Americans. That leaves 5% with a tax increase, which he has also promised.

That 5% currently earns 33% of the income, and pays 57% of the taxes. Apparently they can shoulder much more (enough to give the other 95% a tax break).

A serious question: How much is enough? I asked in another thread recently what the top rate should be, and I had a single response; when that response (by a liberal) was shown to be even below MCAIN and Bush's top rate - the thread died.

How much taxation is enough? When has one American taken enough of the tax burden for 9.5 of his fellow citizens? When will the "most fortunate" have paid enough that the rest of us can thank them for their contributions, and not lambast them for their fortunes?

[florige]

Don't get upset because he gives great speeches and can move people.
I mean c'mon, if every politician only said the stuff they COULD do for sure none of them would ever even get a shot in office. The ones saying he can't do this and can't do that should at least know that much about these assholes.... Sheesh.... Lets see what McCain comes up with next week. You know they are planning to talk some bulls*hit too......

[JudynTX]

Fireworks @ the end? WTF? Did he win already? I thought that was a bit much. :wakeup

[florige]

Fireworks @ the end? WTF? Did he win already? I thought that was a bit much. :wakeup


True. I had my back to the television when they started and I jumped when I heard it. I thought something had blew up!!:lol

[spurster]

Too many promises, but I like the 10 year energy independence idea. This might be more like 20 or 30 years, but it will be much longer than that unless we get focused on it. McCain seems to have voted against alternative energy whenever he could.

Our health-care system badly needs a fix, but I fear we would get something like prescription Medicare, which allows too many tax and deficit dollars feed the pharmas.

Obama's speeches are much better in person. The broadcast cut out much of the crowd noise, so you couldn't get a good idea of the energy and excitement from the crowd.

[JudynTX]

True. I had my back to the television when they started and I jumped when I heard it. I thought something had blew up!!:lol

I wonder how much that cost? :wow

[Anti.Hero]

Dude fumbled through his teleprompter.

He still is no where close to Bill's speaking abilities. Great speaker? Axelrod, Pen, those speech-writers are getting paid MILLIONS. All Obama has to do is read off 3 diff. screens and extend words in his preacher like fashion.



I loved his gates of hell quote though. It's about time this fight get bloody.

Let's see if Mcweaksauce will finally take off the gloves.

[Supergirl]

Yeah keep pouring money into a government sink hole along with doing something thats never worked before in socialized medicine.

I can't wait.

When has the U.S. tried socialized medicine? I must have missed that time in history.

The closest things we have is Medicare, for seniors and the disabled, and it sucks because it is underfunded and very few providers accept it, because they reimburse so low. If we had an actual system of universal health care for everyone who does not have insurance through their employers, then things would be a lot more effective.

Massachusetts is actually a decent model to look to in terms of health care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
It has a balance of state-funded health care (Known as Mass Health, which in terms of quality is actually BETTER coverage than what many private insurances provide) and also employer-provided health care. THere's also a pretty simple process in place to help people apply for health care and determine what they're eligible for. Commonwealth Care is also really decent insurance that covers people who make too much money (over 35K) for Mass Health but still don't have employer-provided health care, and the premiums are quite reasonable.

[101A]

When has the U.S. tried socialized medicine?

Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare are all funded by the govt.

Half of the people covered in this country are covered through some form of "socialized" medicine.

Also, you DO realize the aging of the boomers, and the corresponding health issues that go along with GETTING OLDER is a large factor in health care price increases, don't you?

[101A]

The closest things we have is Medicare, for seniors and the disabled, and it sucks because it is underfunded and very few providers accept it, because they reimburse so low. If we had an actual system of universal health care for everyone who does not have insurance through their employers, then things would be a lot more effective.



The U.S. govt. screws up one program, so you want to give them MORE?

Do you not see the lack of logic in that?

Most providers accept Medicare because most sick people are old. It's not underfunded; the govt. isn't allowed to not fund it's programs. You could make the argument, however, that its cost is increasing at a much more rapid rate than any of its designers ever admitted it would.

Also, if it "reimburses" so low; and you argue that, for that reason, providers don't accept it, what are those providers going to do when ALL people are covered by a similar plan? Just accept less money for the same, or more work? Or will they just (if able) retire, and give us the same doctor shortages other countries are blessed with?

[xrayzebra]

Same old Liberal BS. Nothing new in the speech. Delivery was very good, but hell we knew he could read off the teleprompter, didn't we?

And we knew all his supporters would think it was the greatest speech ever delivered to mankind. And the cameramen did a good job of finding all the weeping fans.

I watched some it while watching Dallas beat up on Minn. And Baylor get their head handed to them by Wake Forest. Poor Bears, long season again.

[Mr. Peabody]

And we knew all his supporters would think it was the greatest speech ever delivered to mankind.


Obama supporters?

j0Fru4dZLGA
lx2WpjiNOXw

[florige]

I wonder how much that cost? :wow

I agree, that was over the top. And probably not cost efficient either....:lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

And Baylor get their head handed to them by Wake Forest. Poor Bears, long season again.

figures that you'd be a baylor fan. hell-you could probably be the dean.

[Das Texan]

Haven't checked the facts, but Wikipedia states the following about U.S. taxpayers:



In his speech last night, Barrack repeated his promise to give a tax cut to "95%" of working Americans. That leaves 5% with a tax increase, which he has also promised.

That 5% currently earns 33% of the income, and pays 57% of the taxes. Apparently they can shoulder much more (enough to give the other 95% a tax break).

A serious question: How much is enough? I asked in another thread recently what the top rate should be, and I had a single response; when that response (by a liberal) was shown to be even below MCAIN and Bush's top rate - the thread died.

How much taxation is enough? When has one American taken enough of the tax burden for 9.5 of his fellow citizens? When will the "most fortunate" have paid enough that the rest of us can thank them for their contributions, and not lambast them for their fortunes?


Why do people always look at taxes as only being paid by individuals?

One key area he said he would raise taxes is in the corporate world by eliminating many of their loopholes to avoid paying taxes when it comes to big corporations.

[implacable44]

Oh and that was a great speech.

Obama addressed every criticism that has been laid at his steps. Obama more than anything else is someone who can bring people together, can unite people for a common cause.

One of the overlying themes tonight was going out into the world and rebuilding the relationships that Bush has fucked up in the last 7 years, especially after giving the world the middle finger when going into Iraq. We do that, and things will begin to improve dramatically.

Will Obama accomplish everything he said he would? Not likely.

But if Obama can accomplish just 2 of the major things he said he would, this nation would be a hell of a lot better off.

Especially the education part.

EVERY CRITICISM ? so he disucssed William Ayers? THe Black LIberation Theology ? -- All I heard was the same old garbage. Citizen of the world ? - I am a United States Citizen - Screw France, Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela--etc...Screw Cap and trade - screw the global warming lie .. screw signing over our sea rights to the world court - screw the UN.

[Mr. Peabody]

EVERY CRITICISM ? so he disucssed William Ayers? THe Black LIberation Theology ?

You get get your discussion of those idiotic topics from Hannity and Joe Pags.

[implacable44]

You get get your discussion of those idiotic topics from Hannity and Joe Pags.

THey sure do discuss them -- but then you get your moronic rhetoric from Geniuses like Keith Olberman and MSNBC / CNN / CBS/ NBC / ABC..etc..


Why are they idiotic ? His relationships are not important ? He is citizen of the world - Messiah.

Is Cap and trade important ? What is important ?

[MannyIsGod]

I"m really suprised so many people thought it was great. I thought it was good, but not great. Maybe even very good. I think he had some great one liners in there and I think he absolutely needed to start attacking McCain. If he doesn't start addressing shit like this he won't have a chance of getting elected.

That being said, I am REALLY suspect of a few of his claims but most of all with the 10 year plan to remove dependency on Middle East oil. I know he didn't say foreign oil but its really the same thing and I see that as impossible. Maybe that will be his JFK man on the moon plan, however.

[Mr. Peabody]

Why are they idiotic ?

They're idiotic because the AP, Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Post, and other news organizations have stated that any relationship between Obama and Ayers is tenuous, at best.

The fact is that Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago and Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago. Ayers is well-respected and very active in the Hyde Park community where Obama lives. The fact that their paths crossed in various civic functions/organizations is no surprise and hardly constitutes an endorsement of Ayers 60's radicalism.

[boo_radley]

Point out differences does not negativity make

[Mr. Peabody]

That being said, I am REALLY suspect of a few of his claims but most of all with the 10 year plan to remove dependency on Middle East oil. I know he didn't say foreign oil but its really the same thing and I see that as impossible. Maybe that will be his JFK man on the moon plan, however.

It's not the same thing. The percentage of oil we get from the Middle East doesn't even constitute a majority of our foreign oil imports.


The United States is the largest oil importer in the world, bringing in 13.5 million barrels per day (mbd), which accounts for 63.5 percent of total U.S. daily conLuck_The_Fakers_sumption (20.6 mbd). [1] Oil from the Middle East (speLuck_The_Fakers_cifically, the Persian Gulf) accounts for 17 percent of U.S. oil imports, and this dependence is growing.


The facts: U.S. oil imports from the Middle East amount to about 22 percent of the 13.5 million barrels of oil imported daily, according to the Energy Information Administration. The nation's biggest suppliers outside the Middle East are Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, accounting for 40 percent of U.S. oil imports.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not the same thing. The percentage of oil we get from the Middle East doesn't even constitute a majority of our foreign oil imports.

And how the hell are you going to make sure companies here don't buy it?

[Mr. Peabody]

And how the hell are you going to make sure companies here don't buy it?

Recommendations from The Heritage Foundation(conservative think tank).


* Diversify the sources of U.S. energy importsaway from the Persian Gulf, importing more oil from other sources such as West Africa and Eurasia, more natural gas from Canada and Mexico, and more liquid natural gas (LNG) from Russia and Africa. The Bush AdministraLuck_The_Fakers_tion should direct the Departments of State and Energy to provide economic aid incentives and technical assistance to non–Middle Eastern oil-producing countries to simplify regulations and speed up the licensing process for expanding and building new pipelines and refiners.

* Diversify the U.S. energy basketby expandLuck_The_Fakers_ing domestic production of oil and gas and by lifting the bureaucratic barriers to greater use of nuclear energy. The White House and Department of Energy should actively lobby Congress to expand domestic petroleum and gas production, such as in ANWR; to allow states to override the federal limitations on continental shelf exploration and exploitation; and to speed up licensing and construction of LNG terminals.[25]

* Encourage expanded production and imports of methanol and ethanol.Congress should work with the U.S. Department of Commerce to lift import tariffs on foreign ethanol proLuck_The_Fakers_duced from sugar cane.[26] The U.S. should also encourage research and development of marLuck_The_Fakers_ket-based alternatives and enhanced technoloLuck_The_Fakers_gies to help meet the nation’s future needs without dependence on foreign oil.

* Expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve(SPR) and create a U.S. Strategic Gasoline Reserve. Currently, the U.S. SPR is sufficient for only 90 days. It needs to be expanded gradually to 180–250 days. The U.S. Department of Energy should cooperate with the European Union, China, India, and Japan to encourage all oil-importing countries to build up their strateLuck_The_Fakers_gic reserves to at least six months.

[ChumpDumper]

so he disucssed William Ayers? THe Black LIberation Theology ?Why should he discuss things he has nothing to do with and have nothing to do with being president?

And are these seriously the only things you can bring up about him?

[MannyIsGod]

None of that other than the first one says anything about limiting companies from importing Middle East oil.

[Mr. Peabody]

None of that other than the first one says anything about limiting companies from importing Middle East oil.

Wall Street Journal says it's doable, but not necessarily the end-all to our petro-addiction


According to the latest government figures, the U.S. imports about 10 million barrels per day of crude oil. About 16% of that comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; the rest comes from Canada, Mexico, Russia, Angola, and the like. Including Iraq, Middle East imports rise to 24%–but presumably the U.S. isn’t out to boycott the Iraqi oil industry, which is just now getting back on its feet.

So replacing 1.68 million barrels per day from the Middle East sounds doable in a decade. Simple measures like boosting fuel economy and driving less have already begun pushing down U.S. gasoline demand. But for that oil plan to work, President Obama would have to overcome one sticky truth: Oil-producing countries outside the Middle East are running out of steam. Mexico and Russia face declining fields. Canada is turning to tar sands, to the horror of environmentalists.

Of course, there’s Venezuela—usually included with Middle East as a petro-villain, but not last night. And there’s Brazil, basking in new offshore discoveries, provided the government’s plan to renationalize some of the Brazilian oil industry doesn’t throw a wrench in there.

Sen. Obama’s call for oil independence sounded strong in the speech. But the reality is it could just end up shifting America’s oil addiction from one supplier to another.

[I Love Me Some Me]

More of the same from a guy who talks a lot about change.

[101A]

Why do people always look at taxes as only being paid by individuals?

One key area he said he would raise taxes is in the corporate world by eliminating many of their loopholes to avoid paying taxes when it comes to big corporations.

Agreed; but he also, by not making his pledge to cut taxes on 100% of working people, indicated he would RAISE 5% of PEOPLE'S taxes. Those people currently pay 55% of the taxes; is that not enough?

[Mr. Peabody]

None of that other than the first one says anything about limiting companies from importing Middle East oil.

Yeah and the AP appears to support your opinion that it will be a nearly impossible task.


Even if U.S. oil demand were to decline significantly over the next decade with more fuel-efficient automobiles and a greater use of biofuels such as ethanol, the United States, which domestically pumps 5.6 million barrels of oil a day, will continue to rely heavily on imports for decades to come, most energy experts acknowledge, with little regard to where the oil comes from.

The United States uses about 21 million barrels of oil products a day. Even if the United States cuts oil demand by about 10 percent, equivalent to Persian Gulf oil imports, it is likely to continue to rely on oil imports and make no distinction as to where it is pumped, energy experts say.

[whottt]

I"m really suprised so many people thought it was great. I thought it was good, but not great. Maybe even very good. I think he had some great one liners in there and I think he absolutely needed to start attacking McCain. If he doesn't start addressing shit like this he won't have a chance of getting elected.

That being said, I am REALLY suspect of a few of his claims but most of all with the 10 year plan to remove dependency on Middle East oil. I know he didn't say foreign oil but its really the same thing and I see that as impossible. Maybe that will be his JFK man on the moon plan, however.



Going after McCain was the best thing he did in his speech IMO. The whole reason the Democrats are out of power is because everyone thinks they are pussies and are more concerned with being liked than actually running the country. He needed to do that...but McCain is a difficult target to go after, becuase his military legacy(and that of his family) demand he be treated with a certain level of respect...

I feel Obama actually pulled this off....and it was a difficult task.


Even better was the way he went after Usama...that was definitely needed...moreso than going after McCain. Democrats need to prove they'll get tough with someone other than Republicans.


So I liked those aspects of his speech.




My biggest problem was that he promised too many things to too many people. He's either really naive or really dishonest to make all those promises.

[angel_luv]

Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.


Amen to that!

Also it would help greatly if more fathers cooperated with the mothers who want to take their kids to church and vice versa.

[MannyIsGod]

Amen to that!

Also it would help greatly if more fathers cooperated with the mothers who want to take their kids to church and vice versa.

Must...not...respond....

[angel_luv]

Must...not...respond....

You are highly intelligent and I am always interested in your opinion. Don't hold back on my account.


and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Amen- again. :)

[implacable44]

Why should he discuss things he has nothing to do with and have nothing to do with being president?

And are these seriously the only things you can bring up about him?

How does it not have anything to do with being President ? What he believes and who he associates with ? so... Hitler moved the crowd and I guess those folks should not have paid attention to what he believed or who he choosed to associate with ?

[Mr. Peabody]

How does it not have anything to do with being President ? What he believes and who he associates with ? so... Hitler moved the crowd and I guess those folks should not have paid attention to what he believed or who he choosed to associate with ?

I was waiting for Godwin's law to rear its ugly head.

[Wild Cobra]

where is the fucking declaration of war?

I've covered this before. The Commander in Chief automatically has the right to do so. It is one of two powers also granted to the congress which at the time, such a body did not have the power to. Nowhere does the constitution claim that the congress is the sole power to declare war.

[T Park]

He did a great job and although TPark's ignorance shows through again no matter what you may think of Obama you had to give him credit for raising the bar and flying over it last night. It is on.

Ignorance on what, him wanting to tax the oblivion out of me?

okiedoke whatever

[T Park]

Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare are all funded by the govt.

Half of the people covered in this country are covered through some form of "socialized" medicine.

Also, you DO realize the aging of the boomers, and the corresponding health issues that go along with GETTING OLDER is a large factor in health care price increases, don't you?


Ask any Englishman about how fucked up socialized medicine is.

Keep the fucking inefficent government away from my doctors thank you.

[T Park]

Why do people always look at taxes as only being paid by individuals?

One key area he said he would raise taxes is in the corporate world by eliminating many of their loopholes to avoid paying taxes when it comes to big corporations.


Goody, then all those corporations pass the cost down to the consumer.

Brilliant :tu

[Buddy Holly]

Goody, then all those corporations pass the cost down to the consumer.

Brilliant :tu

You mean the costs they're already passing down?

:lol

[101A]

You mean the costs they're already passing down?

:lol

I have a small business; the new Texas franchise tax (yes, Tx now has an income tax - but it's only levied at corps) just dinged us for a pretty nice penny.

Damn straight prices are going up.

[bobbyjoe]

Most of your statistics are directly attributable to lifestyle habits and choices; not access to "healthcare".

They won't change, regardless of the funding mechanism for payment of health claims.

Is it pure coincidence that over 50% of new pharmaceuticals are discovered in this country, as are the latest surgical techniques and technologies? Those eventually, of course, spread to the other healthcare systems, but if the U.S. follows those models, do we risk slowing the rate of advance?

What about doctor shortages and pay? In "successful" centralized systems, much of their savings comes directly from price controls on Doctors. Doctors in Canada, for instance, earn 40% of what their peers in the U.S. do - their system (nor Germany's, Japan's, or G. Briitain's) wouldn't work without those controls. Are we going to universally demand doctors take large pay cuts, or are we simply going to continue to let them earn equivalent salaries, but change the funding mechanism?

There's no way you can say these stats are "directly attributable" to US lifestyle habits and choices.

It's highly, highly debatable that your assertion is accurate. American lifestyle's actually score quite well in many areas like smoking. And we obviously have more aggregate wealth than any other nation in the world, which is a hugely offsetting factor.

And there's also a very, very high correlation between going to your general doctor regularly and acquiring the knowledge necessary to make positive health related lifestyle changes. Limited access absolutely makes that much, much more difficult. The stat you always hear about 15% of our country having no health care access also never seems to take into account the millions of underinsured Americans. Millions of Americans simply have catastrophic health care insurance to protect themselves from major expenses but many of these plans aren't designed to promote preventive medicine.

What lifestyle habits and choices are infants making in our country to make them have the highest infant mortality rates amongst developed countries?

I don't disagree that simply improving access will not solve everything. But it is a necessary step in the right direction.

The next steps include: cost containment of bloated administrative costs (both govt and private) as well as figuring out a way to minimize or eliminate the incentives of greedy doctors in this country from ripping off unknowledgable patients with unnecessary, expensive surgeries and drugs which have limited to possibly even negative actual remedial value.

Thanks to the extremist positions of the far right on stem cell research, we are also falling way behind on the innovation to deal with many of the world's worst and most challenging diseases relative to the rest of the world, which is much more progressive on this issue.

Lack of primary care physicians is also a huge problem, because med school students want to chase the big bucks of specialization. Great for them but a terrible overall outcome for the USA. This also needs to be addressed, which I completely agree that "universal health care" will not address.

It's a multipronged problem and will take a long time to address. But it's clear the status quo has failed in a gross manner.

It also needs to be said that Obama's plan is essentially a tax on businesses to force them to provide healthcare. In no way, will it limit choices and freedoms of people in this country to choose what doctors they want to see and what insurance companies they want to contract with. In no way should this have any impact on reducing the innovation produced by drug companies. It's still a free market system, but essentially amounts to an expansion of Medicare to cover a lot more people.

The burden will be bore by businesses and the govt. Temporarily this should have an adverse impact on the deficit and corporate profits, but long term it's a sound investment in America.

[101A]

What lifestyle habits and choices are infants making in our country to make them have the highest infant mortality rates amongst developed countries?

Older people getting pregnant, infertility treatments, smoking, drug and alcohol use, diet.


I don't disagree that simply improving access will not solve everything. But it is a necessary step in the right direction.

The next steps include: cost containment of bloated administrative costs (both govt and private) as well as figuring out a way to minimize or eliminate the incentives of greedy doctors in this country from ripping off unknowledgable patients with unnecessary, expensive surgeries and drugs which have limited to possibly even negative actual remedial value.

Enlightened. You are right. I have never heard Obama, however, criticize doctor's charges, and Rx writing practices. Good luck with that whole "containing bloated government costs" thing. Let me know how that works out.


Thanks to the extremist positions of the far right on stem cell research, we are also falling way behind on the innovation to deal with many of the world's worst and most challenging diseases relative to the rest of the world, which is much more progressive on this issue.

Fail. There is plenty of govt. funded Stem Cell research occurring right now; from cells harvested from umbilical chords, as well as adult stem cells; which have shown and are showing much more promise than Embryonic stem cells. A red meat issue, but not a real one.


Lack of primary care physicians is also a huge problem, because med school students want to chase the big bucks of specialization. Great for them but a terrible overall outcome for the USA. This also needs to be addressed, which I completely agree that "universal health care" will not address.

We have a greater supply of PC docs than other countries; we're obviously doing something right. The docs have been following the 'boomers for years; lots of money to be made with that group (not a coincidence that Viagra was created right as the earliest Boomers reached 50, after all). It will, to a certain extent, start to correct when the Boomers start to kick...of course the cost increases will slow then, as well. Old people get sick; sick people cost money until they die; the older the population, the more (exponentially) healthcare costs.


It's a multipronged problem and will take a long time to address. But it's clear the status quo has failed in a gross manner.

Over the top rhetoric. "In a Gross Manner". By what standard? The VERY best care in the world is available IN THIS COUNTRY. Most great advances in medicine occur IN THIS COUNTRY. Because of the salaries they receive we have the best doctors IN THIS COUNTRY. I could go on. I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, in fact, I would say it is far from it, but to say the system is completely horrible, and hasn't achieved some of the most remarkable advances mankind has ever seen, is head in the sand denial.


It also needs to be said that Obama's plan is essentially a tax on businesses to force them to provide healthcare. In no way, will it limit choices and freedoms of people in this country to choose what doctors they want to see and what insurance companies they want to contract with. In no way should this have any impact on reducing the innovation produced by drug companies. It's still a free market system, but essentially amounts to an expansion of Medicare to cover a lot more people.

Forcing a business owner to spend money on something isn't limiting his freedoms? It also doesn't control any of those costs you were concerned about, does it. Doesn't address doctor compensation at all, or their prescribing practices.


The burden will be bore by businesses and the govt. Temporarily this should have an adverse impact on the deficit and corporate profits, but long term it's a sound investment in America.

Who is the government? I thought Obama was giving us all a tax break (or at least 95% of us)? Where is that money gonna come from?

[bobbyjoe]

Older people getting pregnant, infertility treatments, smoking, drug and alcohol use, diet.



Enlightened. You are right. I have never heard Obama, however, criticize doctor's charges, and Rx writing practices. Good luck with that whole "containing bloated government costs" thing. Let me know how that works out.



Fail. There is plenty of govt. funded Stem Cell research occurring right now; from cells harvested from umbilical chords, as well as adult stem cells; which have shown and are showing much more promise than Embryonic stem cells. A red meat issue, but not a real one.



We have a greater supply of PC docs than other countries; we're obviously doing something right. The docs have been following the 'boomers for years; lots of money to be made with that group (not a coincidence that Viagra was created right as the earliest Boomers reached 50, after all). It will, to a certain extent, start to correct when the Boomers start to kick...of course the cost increases will slow then, as well. Old people get sick; sick people cost money until they die; the older the population, the more (exponentially) healthcare costs.



Over the top rhetoric. "In a Gross Manner". By what standard? The VERY best care in the world is available IN THIS COUNTRY. Most great advances in medicine occur IN THIS COUNTRY. Because of the salaries they receive we have the best doctors IN THIS COUNTRY. I could go on. I'm not arguing that the system is perfect, in fact, I would say it is far from it, but to say the system is completely horrible, and hasn't achieved some of the most remarkable advances mankind has ever seen, is head in the sand denial.



Forcing a business owner to spend money on something isn't limiting his freedoms? It also doesn't control any of those costs you were concerned about, does it. Doesn't address doctor compensation at all, or their prescribing practices.



Who is the government? I thought Obama was giving us all a tax break (or at least 95% of us)? Where is that money gonna come from?

This lifestyle argument is very weak. First off, problems with poor diet, smoking, drug use, etc are not exclusive to America. In the majority of other nations, marijuana use is either legal or much more common than it is in America because it is not cracked down as heavily as it is here.

Drug use and smoking in the USA have actually been declining heavily over the past 10years. Meanwhile, health care costs are growing by anywhere from 3 to 5 times the rate of inflation over that same time period.

Another factor you completely ignore is that the "overtreatment" phenomenon engaged in by greedy American doctors causes and how this perpetuates a great deal of the drug abuse taht goes on in America today. Doctors frequently prescribe medicines such as painkillers and antianxiety meds which are abused recreationally by those that dont need them. As of yet, the medical profession and US government have failed in developing a system to limit and punish Dr. shopping amongst the portion of the public who hopes to absue drugs.

You also completely and erroneously discount the strong link between access to health care and acquisition of the knowledge necessary for a person to modify lifestyle habits which may be injurious to their health.

How does increasing access to healthcare decrease costs through "universal health care" in the long run? It's pretty simple, really. The more people who have access to healthcare, the more that visit doctors more frequently. The more this happens, the earlier health problems and disorders are diagnosed. The earlier in the cycle you catch problems, generally the lower the cost of treatment and thus lower costs for the overall system. The more knowledgable you are about why certain lifestyles you are engaging in are potentially harmful to you, the less likely you are to engage in them. It's worked in countries like Taiwan which at one point had 40% of it's citizens uninsured and now has 3% with lower aggregate costs. They pulled this off in 10 years.

None of this even mentions the tremendous amount of benefit America would have in terms of worker productivity if quality and affordable health care were available to all Americans. Healthier people are more productive than unhealthy people. They have less absenteeism from work, are able to focus on tasks better, and more upbeat and efficient. No doubt in my mind this would positively influence the long term US economy. As is stands right now, there's arguably no greater threat to the long term vitality of the US economy than health care costs as a % of GDP.

You mention that you are a small business owner. As am I. Any good small business owner knows that there's a difference between an "expense" and an "investment". IMO, there's no doubt that healthcare is an investment in America. Like any investment, there will be a high upfront cost. The question is whether the projected return on investment is sufficient to justify the initial costs. Based on the empirical data we see from other countries who rank much better in key health quality metrics, there's no doubt in my mind the opportunity for a system with much better ROI than the current one exists.

I see many on the far right of our politics who erroneously look at healthcare expansion and reform as merely an expense and not an investment. This is very shortsighted.

You simply can't do much worse than spending 2-3 X what other nations do on healthcare and still ranking near the bottom of every major health metric. Explaining it away with the "lifestyle" argument is disingenuous.

I've never argued that Obama's plan is the cureall. As I've stated, this is just step 1. There are many other left and not all have very clearcut or simple solutions. As I said previously, I still maintain that the #1 problem is overtreatment: doctors prescribing unnecessary surgeries, drugs, and exams with very limited and dubious medical utility due to sheer greed and the common practice of "defensive medicine" which impose avoidable and bloated costs to the entire system, which are then passed down to consumers.

Neither political party has recommended an adequate strategy to combat this issue. The incentive for doctor's to rip off patients to make a few extra bucks to pay for that vacation house payment or that Mercedes payment needs to be stripped and replaced with compensation packages which reward positive outcomes to health issues. "Defensive Medicine" needs to be attacked through tort reform.

[ducks]

Brilliant speech. He went straight after Mccain. Can't wait until tomorrow morning. McCain better bring the heat.

america will not really on oil in 10 years is a big lie


all he wants is a bigger goverment
goverment will fix all your problems
do not worry goverment will make a retirement plan
do not worry goverment will fix health care
do not worry about it goverment will fix house loans since you are dumb enough to sign internest free loans


big big big goverment and taxes

and taking bush tax breaks is a take increase!

[Mr. Peabody]

america will not really on oil in 10 years is a big lie


all he wants is a bigger goverment
goverment will fix all your problems
do not worry goverment will make a retirement plan
do not worry goverment will fix health care
do not worry about it goverment will fix house loans since you are dumb enough to sign internest free loans


big big big goverment and taxes

and taking bush tax breaks is a take increase!

Are interest-free loans a bad idea? I thought the problem with mortgages was that you have to pay interest on them and if you have an adjustable rate, you can be priced out of your own home.

I actually think an interest-free loan is a great idea. Take the loan and put it in a CD and keep the interest that's earned.

[bobbyjoe]

Are interest-free loans a bad idea? I thought the problem with mortgages was that you have to pay interest on them and if you have an adjustable rate, you can be priced out of your own home.

I actually think an interest-free loan is a great idea. Take the loan and put it in a CD and keep the interest that's earned.

I think he meant interest-only loans.

Or perhaps he was really referring to 0% down loans.

If he abhors big government so much, I sure hope he didnt vote for W in 04 or 08. Our government has NEVER been as big or spendful as it is today...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It was an absolutely fantastic speech.


Now all he has to do is pull a golden egg out of his ass and get Santa Claus to come down my chimney and I'll actually believe he can pull off everything he promised.


All he did was tell everyone what they wanted to hear.


I'd have preferred a little better grasp of reality. We don't live in Disneyland...and only a fool thinks we ever could.

Lots of fools in that crowd.

Sorry, didn't mean to rain on everyones parade...it's just a sad fact of life that parades really do get rained on from time to time.

:lmao
It's funny because this was my exact reaction as well. He pretty much promised everything I would ever want out of my country in one speech. At least he tried to explain how he'd pay for it all.