Democratic Convention
Mon, 2008-08-25 11:00
#1
Boom Boom
Democratic Convention
Mon, 2008-08-25 11:00
#2
Boom Boom
Carl Bernstein was just on CNN talking about the Clintons. He says Hillary has to deliver a barnstormer speech backing Obama to assure herself of a future in this party, and Bill has to deliver a speech that will restore his legacy which has been badly tarnished in the recent campaign.
Tonight, Michelle Obama speaks. Ted Kennedy will make an appearance and will be honoured with tributes.
ETA: The interviewer talking to Bernstein said that while Hillary has promised to fully back Obama, she nevertheless is "conflicted" about this. Holy cow - how can anyone say that without actually being Hillary? I think CNN should reassign that interviewer, whoever it was (I didn't catch the name). [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Mon, 2008-08-25 11:21
#3
quote:
Carl Bernstein was just on CNN talking about the Clintons. He says Hillary has to deliver a barnstormer speech backing Obama to assure herself of a future in this party, and Bill has to deliver a speech that will restore his legacy which has been badly tarnished in the recent campaign.
I suppose they'll need to be well positioned after McCain wins.
Mon, 2008-08-25 11:33
#4
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
I suppose they'll need to be well positioned after McCain wins.
That's actually quite perceptive - and perhaps the reason for that interviewer to say that Hillary is "conflicted" about fully endorsing Obama.
Mon, 2008-08-25 14:50
#5
Boom Boom
CNN reports [b]only 6%[/b] of the DNC delegates wanted Obama to pick Biden as his VP!
ETA: the network is also reporting there's a noisy pro-Clinton demonstration outside the convention building.
[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Mon, 2008-08-25 17:41
#6
Boom Boom
For someone undergoing very serious cancer treatment, Senator Ted Kennedy just gave an awesome speech in support of Obama. (Kennedy's speech was preceeded by a video tribute of Kennedy, going back to JFK and RFK and his picking up the torch)
Mon, 2008-08-25 20:00
#7
ceti
Michelle is by the far the better speaker of the two. Barack has this strange habit of looking from side to side rather than directly at the camera, as if he is posing for a Mount Rushmore profile.
Tue, 2008-08-26 00:01
#8
I think he's looking at teleprompters. Or trying to make eye-contact with the entire crowd.
Tue, 2008-08-26 12:47
#9
M. Spector
Remember the police riot at the [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/albert08282008.html]1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago?[/url]
Forty years later, history could be about to repeat itself:
quote:
On Monday, Denver police spent the day intimidating and provoking peaceful protesters. By day's end there were entirely too many police with too much time on their hands. They were eager to arrest people in Denver. It didn't matter if the people were simply walking down the street. Medics were even detained.Flashing a wide variety of weapons, Denver police positioned police gangs around the peaceful Food Not Bombs. Police even made a single file procession through the heart of Food Not Bombs' peaceful dinner. As people were eating, Denver police made one of the silliest processions ever through a dinner of rice and lentils.
After spending the late afternoon in bizarre staging and intimidation tactics in the Civic Center area, Denver police began spraying people with pepper spray and shoving people randomly by day's end. Finally, apparently bored and itchy to arrest, they arrested people for their Democratic National Convention dog cages. It was a sad and embarrassing day for Denver police, proving that lawlessness reigns for US police.
[url=http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/]Censored News[/url]
----
Video: [url=http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It... trap peaceful protesters in Denver[/url]
quote:
After trapping the crowd between two buildings, hundreds of officers used pepper spray, batons and unwarranted aggression. After being surrounded for 20 minutes, two ANP producers managed to escape after recording the whole affair.
----
quote:
When police surrounded several dozen people pinned against the wall of a building, a crowd of several hundred protesters surged up to the police line from behind chanting, "They say get back, we say fight back."The protesters near the building were held there by riot police for an hour, while individuals were taken from the group and arrested. Most of the remaining activists were allowed to leave around 8:20 p.m.
"There were three or four hundred people on the sidewalk, perfectly within their rights to be on the sidewalk. We were illegally detained and we may bring suit against the city," said Mark Cohen of Recreate '68.
Cohen said those within the riot police line were calling family and friends on their cell phones, warning them they feared police were about to unleash tear gas."
"I don't know why else they would put on gas masks," Cohen said. "We had minors in there; we had older people in there. They were scared and I don't blame them. And there was no reason for this, no reason in the world."
"We've been peaceful the last two days," said activist Larry Hales. "[The police] are the ones who have escalated the situation."
Saunier said those arrested would be processed at the city's temporary processing facility, which was built in anticipation of mass arrests during the DNC. Protest groups upset with the jail's wire cages, dubbed the facility "Gitmo on the Platte." - [url=http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=98382&provider=top]Source...
----
quote:
Nothing could more graphically expose the political fraud of the “change you can believe in” mantra promoted by the Democrats and their presidential candidate Barack Obama than the reactionary atmosphere surrounding the party’s national convention, which kicked off Monday in Denver, Colorado.The more than 4,000 Democratic delegates—covered by an army of some 15,000 members of the press—are convening in what amounts to a political bubble surrounded by security measures consistent with those of a police state. The convention itself, not to mention the lavish parties being thrown for the delegates—many of them elected officials—is being paid for largely by major corporations looking to buy political influence....
This is in keeping with the general tenor of the convention itself, which is packaged as a $60 million, four-day infomercial, with no question of a debate over policy breaking out on the floor of Denver’s Pepsi Center, where the delegates are assembled. The media, with very few exceptions, functions as an uncritical conduit for this process, accepting its narrow parameters as given.
It has been more than three decades since such a convention was an arena for any form of political debate, and where the outcome was not preordained. The ritualistic character of these events is a function of the widening gulf separating the official politics of the US two-party system — controlled lock, stock and barrel by the banks, corporations and a narrow financial elite — from the vast mass of the American people....
The actual scale of protest in Denver is decidedly limited. On Sunday, barely 1,200 people participated in an antiwar demonstration led by Ron Kovic, the paralyzed Vietnam War veteran and author of the book Born on the Fourth of July, and Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. [b]The leaderships of the major antiwar protest groups are part of the effort to divert anger against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into support for a political party that has funded and will continue both US interventions.[/b]
Nonetheless, demonstrators have been confronted with overwhelming police force. The ranks of Denver’s police have been doubled by the influx of cops from throughout the surrounding area.
As Denver’s Rocky Mountain News reported, “Hundreds of heavily armed officers, some clad in riot gear or hanging off SUVs, are saturating Denver’s streets in unprecedented numbers, quickly isolating any hint of trouble that could tarnish the city’s reputation under the limelight of the Democratic National Convention.
“The officers — on foot, horseback, bicycles and motorcycles — are armed with black batons and pepperball guns that resemble assault rifles. And they were quick to move Sunday when hundreds of rowdy protesters took to the streets of downtown.”
Police have distributed pamphlets to would-be protesters warning them that they will be subject to arrest if they refuse orders to disperse, even if they have broken no laws. To deal with potential mass arrests, the city has opened a temporary detention center — a warehouse divided into chain-link cells....
The force of 1,500 officers brought in from 52 police agencies in nearby areas does not include a huge federal contingent that has been mobilized for the event....
Some $50 million in federal funding has been allotted for security measures at each of the conventions. In Denver, a portion of this money has gone to equip police with body armor and shields as well as to purchase an armored vehicle.
Federal and local police agents have established a secret headquarters, dubbed the Multi-Agency Command Center, or MACC, from which they are monitoring every movement in the city via hundreds of security cameras that are trained on the convention center, protest sites and the entire surrounding area.
In a chilling indication that the police surveillance is far wider and more intrusive than has been reported by the media, protest leader Cindy Sheehan reported returning to her Denver hotel room Monday to find a man in her room using a screwdriver on the telephone.
The US Customs and Border Protection agency has been brought in to inspect vehicles in the city, while agents of the Transportation Security Administration are being deployed to screen those entering the convention center.
The military has also been deployed in Denver for the convention. In addition to the activation of over 1,000 National Guard troops, elements of the US Coast Guard have been placed in charge of intelligence operations in designated areas, while the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the Northern Command, based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, are also participating. The Pentagon refused to supply any details on the precise role of these commands, but some of the media reported that they were providing the convention with “air cover.”...
Speaking last Saturday in Springfield, Illinois, in his announcement of Delaware Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate, Obama claimed that his campaign was based on “a simple belief: that the American people were better than their government in Washington — a government that has fallen prey to special interests and policies that have left working people behind.”
Yet in Denver this week, he is presiding over a convention that is being paid for by these same special interests, with the clear understanding that their money will secure favors from Democratic politicians and, potentially, a Democratic administration headed by Obama himself....
Among the events scheduled at the convention is a poker night for delegates at Coors Field, sponsored by a business alliance that is lobbying Congress not to place restrictions on Internet gambling.
Even the government-backed mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been slated to host events and contribute to the convention’s cost, until the idea was scrapped out of fear that it would trigger outrage because of the recent government move to bail out the firms.
Behind the media glitz and meticulously staged spectacle, the Denver convention’s reality of corruption, elitism and repression is the real face of the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. - [url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/dems-a26.shtml]WSWS[/url]
[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Tue, 2008-08-26 14:58
#10
Kucinich just gave a fun, fiery speech. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I love Kucinich! Short and sweet, and got everyone going. Followed by some droning guy who was dull as dishwater. Oh well.
Tue, 2008-08-26 16:10
#11
Boom Boom
Mark Warner (former guv of Virginia) gave the keynote address tonight, and although it was probably too technical and intellectual for most of the delegates, it was interesting to hear how a relatively young politico views the future. Already I'm hearing pundits saying this is the next new guy, after Obama.
The guv of Montana gave a rambling speech which tried to make the claim that the Dems are about 'energy independence' but my BS detector kept going off. Why they scheduled this guy while everyone was on pins and needles waiting for Hillary escapes me.
[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Tue, 2008-08-26 18:17
#12
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
[b]Barack has this strange habit of looking from side to side rather than directly at the camera, as if he is posing for a Mount Rushmore profile.[/b]
Perhaps he is.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR200808... only four of the last 20 presidential elections has the shorter candidate won.[/url]
Obama is 6-foot-1-inch. McCain is 5-foot-9-inches.
Can I change the channel now, please?
Tue, 2008-08-26 19:13
#13
Boom Boom
Hillary's speech was 20 minutes, and it was a hell of a good one - she's a great public speaker. I think she did what was expected of her - united the party behind Obama. She made a good crack about McCain - "it's no wonder that George Bush will be with John McCain next week in the Twin Cities, because it's impossible to tell Bush and McCain apart", and "we don't need four more years of the past eight years". [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
ETA: Hillary paid tribute to a lot of people, including Michelle Obama who spoke last night, and to Joe and Judy Biden, and to her supporters in [b]The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pantsuits[/b]. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Wed, 2008-08-27 00:56
#14
I'm not sure what went wrong with Warner and his speech. The two possibilities in my mind are:
1.He was asked to give a speech that wouldn't overshadow Hillary Clinton's.
2.The 'high tech' community is an increasingly important constituency for the Democratic Party (which is not to say that all of the 'high tech' workers support the Democrats) and that speech was meant as a shout out to them.
It will probably help Warner with fundraising with that community when he runs for President after the two Obama terms.
In regards to Schweitzer and his speech
I thought it was excellent. Very fiery and populist. I can understand some people not liking or trusting populism or being very skeptical of it.
Given that he mainly discussed energy, what gave him credibility to me and made his speech succesful for me was knowing that he is a scientist (an agricultural research scientist to be precise).
Wed, 2008-08-27 03:41
#15
I thought Warner's speech was excellent. He made a lot of really fantastic points in an easy-to-understand and populist way.
Wed, 2008-08-27 03:52
#16
Boom Boom
Don't get me wrong - I like Mark Warner, and he gave a good speech, but I thought it was a bit too hi-brow for that crowd on the convention floor. Sweitzer's speech on the other hand was tailor-made for that crowd. I didn't know anything about his credentials beforehand. I still think a Dem or Repug talking about 'energy independence' is hilarious, given they're all in the pockets of Big Oil.
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:03
#17
I don't think it was too highbrow. People aren't as stupid as the media makes them out to be. Just because he didn't get them chanting doesn't mean they weren't listening. And I think they were.
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:13
#18
Boom Boom
I actually hope you're right, because Warner to me might be a good choice to follow Obama four or eight years from now. While he was speaking, the camera panned into the crowd of mostly (so it seemed to me) of uninterested people.
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:15
#19
quote:
It will probably help Warner with fundraising with that community when he runs for President after the two Obama terms.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] Wake up Adam, you're dreaming.
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:16
#20
I just wanted to point out the tendancy of people to refer to male politicians as "Biden, Obama" etc., but to Clinton as "Hillary". Why the double standard?
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:18
#21
Boom Boom
Tonight Joe Biden and Bill Clinton will be preceded by Bill Richardson and Evan Blayh, and one other person I didn't catch the name of. Joe Biden will be Obama's attack dog, so exect a round of attacks against McCain. Clinton is expected to speak about foreign policy.
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:21
#22
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]I just wanted to point out the tendancy of people to refer to male politicians as "Biden, Obama" etc., but to Clinton as "Hillary". Why the double standard?[/b]
We had this discussion during the primaries. Hillary's campaign material was designed this way - and last night look at all the "Hillary" placards being waved at the convention!
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:27
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]We had this discussion during the primaries. Hillary's campaign material was designed this way - and last night look at all the "Hillary" placards being waved at the convention![/b]
You are right Boom Boom - sorry I am just sensitive to that type of thing. It seems like it is a common occurance (remember Belinda?) and serves to make women seem more juvenile than their male counterparts, who are mostly referred to by their last names. Do you think Clinton's campaign material was designed in response to this trend?
In regards to Michelle Obama's positive speech, perhaps she will run against Hillary Clinton in 2012 to be nominee and it will be really interesting?
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:43
#24
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
In regards to Michelle Obama's positive speech, perhaps she will run against Hillary Clinton in 2012 to be nominee and it will be really interesting?
Hillary Clinton has had an excellent run, but there are newer, fresher faces who probably might like a run after Obama - possibly Mark Warner, Evan Blayh, and there may be others. Michelle Obama would be an interesting choice, I agree. Imagine her running against Condi Rice in 2012 or 2016. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:51
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Hillary Clinton has had an excellent run, but there are newer, fresher faces who probably might like a run after Obama - possibly Mark Warner, Evan Blayh, and there may be others. Michelle Obama would be an interesting choice, I agree. Imagine her running against Condi Rice in 2012 or 2016. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
I would absolutely love to see two women running against each other for president.
I remember when I was 12 yrs old (1993) and we had a female leader here on the Island for both the PC and Liberal parties and how exciting I found that election, as we were guaranteed to have a female premier. We also had a female lieutenant-governor. Anyways, don't think this has happened many other places - sorry for thread drift.
Wed, 2008-08-27 04:58
#26
Hilary was trying to appeal to her die hard fas, who said that they were going to vote McCain now that Hilary is out.
Are these women so tied to her that they'd willingly sell out women to a McCain presidency?
It appears so.
Wed, 2008-08-27 05:09
#27
I just can't believe the lack of perspective in some quarters in the States.
True a woman came short in becoming a nominee. But for chrissake an African American has a real shot at being the President.
Surely that is worthy of recognition and important too.
Wed, 2008-08-27 05:09
#28
Given the numbers it's possible to find people holding any combination of positions, no matter how contradictory. In this case we have a biased media throng searching for women with exactly this combination. They are definitely making more noise than their numbers warrant.
Wed, 2008-08-27 05:45
#29
Boom Boom
Unfortunately, BA, as discussed in previous threads, that African American with a shot at being President isn't a real progressive, and indeed may be a warmonger given his positions on Iran and Pakistan.
As for the possibility of Hillary Clinton making a comeback in 2012 (or 2016, if Obama manages to serve two terms), it's well to remember that she is $24 million in debt, including $13 million she lent herself and presumably she would like back. Could she raise the million$ required for a second run at the presidency, especially if Mark Warner (for example) decides to enter the race as well? And, let's not forget husband Bill who has been a grumpy campaigner this time around - four years from now he'll be even maybe more crankier and more of a loose cannon, and thus a real handicap for Hillary Clinton.
I think Hillary truly deserves a prestigious post - anything she wants - in an Obama administration, if she decides to step down as guv of New York.
ETA: I used to visit my then gf in Winchester, Virginia (birthplace of Patsy Cline) while Warner was running for guverner of the state, and remember reading good stuff about him in the newspapers back then. He was born in 1954, making him five years younger than me, and I'm 59 soon. He became rich in the cell phone industry and used that money to help himself politically. He's been difficult to pin down on the Iraq war, but my sense is that he supported the war but now wants the troops home, so he may be like Obama, a potential warmonger.
[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Wed, 2008-08-27 06:05
#30
Isn't Nader supposed to be having a rally in Denver tonite?
Wed, 2008-08-27 06:12
#31
The "Obama will invade Pakistan" rhetoric pops up frequently here on Babble. Other than Obama's initial comments of August 1, 2007, which he clarified within [url=http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/top/8d9e96c628c... same week[/url], can anyone produce further support for this recurring claim? I'm thinking additional quotes from Obama himself or perhaps something from his policy statements?
A little Googling shows there may have been Obama comments about "taking out high-level Al Qaeda targets in the mountains of Pakistan" on July 16, 2008, but to me that doesn't sound like a full out invasion. YMMV.
Wed, 2008-08-27 07:17
#32
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
[b]The "Obama will invade Pakistan" rhetoric pops up frequently here on Babble. Other than Obama's initial comments of August 1, 2007, which he clarified within [url=http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/top/8d9e96c628c... same week[/url], can anyone produce further support for this recurring claim? I'm thinking additional quotes from Obama himself or perhaps something from his policy statements?A little Googling shows there may have been Obama comments about "taking out high-level Al Qaeda targets in the mountains of Pakistan" on July 16, 2008, but to me that doesn't sound like a full out invasion. YMMV.[/b]
[url=http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2008/07/pilger-obama-afghanistan-news]..., the prince of bait-and-switch[/url]
Published 24 July 2008
excerpt:
[b]In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan.[/b]
He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.
Wed, 2008-08-27 07:26
#33
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]You are right Boom Boom - sorry I am just sensitive to that type of thing. It seems like it is a common occurance (remember Belinda?) and serves to make women seem more juvenile than their male counterparts, who are mostly referred to by their last names. Do you think Clinton's campaign material was designed in response to this trend?[/b]
Your concern and sensitivity to this is quite valid. And I'm sure the campaign's use of Clinton's first name in their promotional material was a concession to the prevailing sexist trend in politics to treat women as children and men as grownups.
We did indeed discuss this issue during the primaries, but it was by no means conclusively resolved that calling her Hillary by default was justified simply because the Democratic Party backroom boys approved of it.
Wed, 2008-08-27 07:30
#34
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
We did indeed discuss this issue during the primaries, but it was by no means conclusively resolved that calling her Hillary by default was justified simply because the Democratic Party backroom boys approved of it.
I believe Hillary herself approved of this tactic - and she's the candidate, she's paying for it, and has final say.
Wed, 2008-08-27 07:37
#35
M. Spector
Not with me, she doesn't.
Wed, 2008-08-27 07:45
#36
Boom Boom
I didn't know you were working on her campaign. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-08-27 07:56
#37
M. Spector
I didn't know you weren't. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-08-27 08:03
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]I believe Hillary herself approved of this tactic - and she's the candidate, she's paying for it, and has final say.[/b]
I think she has a right to call herself whatever she wants in her campaign branding, however if the MSM and political commentators had referred to her by her married name (or Rodham Clinton) all along, she would not have used Hillary.
It also may have absolutely nothing to do with the sexism, but instead be an attempt to distance herself from the president Clinton.
Wed, 2008-08-27 08:41
#39
Boom Boom
MS: good response! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-08-27 08:44
#40
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:
It also may have absolutely nothing to do with the sexism, but instead be an attempt to distance herself from the president Clinton.
I think it was a smart move, whether it was hers, or someone else's: using "Hillary" on the banners and signs and all campaign paraphernalia plays on her name recognition, and adds a 'friendly', down home touch, which probably connected with a lot of voters out there.
Wed, 2008-08-27 09:25
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[QB]Unfortunately, BA, as discussed in previous threads, that African American with a shot at being President isn't a real progressive, and indeed may be a warmonger given his positions on Iran and Pakistan.
With respect this is completely irrelevant to the historic moment of the first African American serious nominee. The same would and could be said for Clinton. That would not have overtaken the historic moment of a woman competing to be President.
Their fitness for office based on someone's criteria for fitness is not the same issue as an African American potentially becoming President just 4 decades after MLK stood and challenged his nation with a dream of a better country. It is a truly amazing bit of history and worthy of noting.
As well I don't buy into this there is no difference between Obama and McCain or that Obama is somehow more likely to be a warmonger than McCain and the Republican warhawks. You are welcome to believe what you like, but I am welcome to celebrate a moment in history that seemed unlikely even a few years ago.
Wed, 2008-08-27 10:58
#42
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
You are welcome to believe what you like, but I am welcome to celebrate a moment in history that seemed unlikely even a few years ago.
I totally agree the 'glass ceiling' for women and African-Americans aspiring the highest office in the US is a disgrace, but that 'glass ceiling' also exists for true progressives. On the bonus side, Obama and Clinton have already shattered that glass ceiling. When will a progressive candidate do the same?
Wed, 2008-08-27 11:33
#43
Boom Boom
Speaking of HRC, this [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton]Wiki[/url] entry is an interesting (and long) read.
Wed, 2008-08-27 16:12
#44
Boom Boom
Bill Clinton just gave a real barnstormer of a speech supporting Obama and making mincemeat out of the Repugs. He had to wait until a five minute standing ovation was over before he could start.
[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Wed, 2008-08-27 18:23
#45
RevolutionPlease
Which American station do people watching it recommend?
Got it on PBS right now.
Wed, 2008-08-27 19:02
#46
Boom Boom
It's on CNN, CBC, and CPAC. I think CNN is doing okay.
Another barnstormer speech tonight, this time from Joe Biden - he ripped McCain to shreds (which was easy to do...). [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Obama joined Biden on stage at the end.
Wed, 2008-08-27 19:03
#47
RevolutionPlease
I almost teared up when they had the part with his mother. Man, they do it up good.
[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]
Wed, 2008-08-27 19:05
#48
Boom Boom
Biden's son (Beau) did a great job of introducing his dad.
Wed, 2008-08-27 19:13
#49
RevolutionPlease
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Biden's son (Beau) did a great job of introducing his dad.[/b]
The content was great, lacked a bit in presentation.
Did you hear Biden's freudian slip.
"George, er John McCain"
Wed, 2008-08-27 19:17
#50
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Did you hear Biden's freudian slip."George, er John McCain"
Yes. And I think it may have been deliberate, but it was a good one. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-08-27 19:17
#51
RevolutionPlease
I should really start another thread but the show immediately following is "Ferrets: Pursuit of Excellence" Highlights of the annual Ferret Buckeye Bash in Columbus, Ohio, as breeders and owners viie for prizes and bragging rights. (Documentary) [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]