For Those Who Missed the Speech

by Matt Martin | 30 Comments

I can’t express how amazing it was to be there in person; there wasn’t a seat left in the Excel center and that’s with hundreds on the floor.

Take a look at our next President:

June 3, 2008, 10:37 pm | Category: General |

30 Responses to “For Those Who Missed the Speech”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • Dantheman
    June 4, 2008 at 6:45 am

    While I won’t be voting for Obama, i would have love to have been there for the historical value of the moment. It is possible to be a McCain supporter and still respect what Obama respresents.

  • amuseinc
    June 4, 2008 at 9:43 am

    The passion and the positive energy came through even though i was miles away in front of a television. We should be honored to have ben the state this happened in… I will be so happy to have an intelligent forward thinking person as our President instead of the Republican stumblebums we have had like Bush. Here’s to stopping Bush’s third term with the doddering old man.

  • Dantheman
    June 4, 2008 at 9:52 am

    I take some issue with the “forward looking” point. Obama is poised to repeat some very serious mistakes that our country is still trying to deal with.

    Today, this election seems to be about Iraq. But in a generation, we’ll realize this election was about entitlements, and if Obama is elected we will have made the problem seriously worse and actually straddled our kids with major issues.

    Hope is a great thing. But making huge promises without thinking about how our society can back them up is just plain careless.

  • Alec
    June 4, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Investing in Labor, Families, and Education is not an entitlement. It is a wise investment. What has gotten us into this “mess” is 30 years of anti-labor/anti-family supply side economics, where the only way to stimulate a booming economy was to make credit easier and easier to get, because the labor power had been reduced to rubble from Regan on, and now we are paying the price of failed supply side economics.

    The GI Bill investment in the WWII vets gave us our greatest generation leaders. It was the smartest investment we ever made, but in the crazy world of Neo-con economics, investment in people is an entitlement and investment in multi national corporations that sit on their profits or invest it ourseas is considered a god thing.

    The power of this country has always been in the fact that we have a core mass of successful, middle class people, not just a few super elites. We have been our weakest during those times when the government propped up the super elites, such as during the time of the Railroad barrons of the early 1900’s that led to the great depression, or now, the Oil and multinational baron’s that have led to our newest great resession.

    Supply side economics works very well, for a very very few. That is conservative politics. GI Bills are entitlements and Oil company give aways are good policy.

  • Zach
    June 4, 2008 at 11:01 am

    “Today, this election seems to be about Iraq. But in a generation, we’ll realize this election was about entitlements, and if Obama is elected we will have made the problem seriously worse and actually straddled our kids with major issues.”

    major issues like Iraq and global warming? Financial equality? Straddling our kids with major issues? What about the fact that we haven’t paid a cent for this war? Or our stimulus checks? I think our kids will be paying for that. Or our inactivity in working to halt global warming? Who will pay for that down the road? I can’t think of any issue more major than that. And Obama didn’t create this mess, the Republican Administration created iraq. And has done nothing to combat global warming. In effect they have fed the problem. McCain’s plan is to do nothing, and keep feeding these problems. The Republican agenda is to ignore these issues. And Obama is attacked for addressing and wanting to fix them? It isn’t gonna be free. We aren’t gonna cut our way out of these problems. If you are truly concerned about America’s future, your kids future, I think you would do well to step back and think about who and what agenda you are supporting. We are going to have to pay to fix the mess we are in. A good place to start would be the what 5,000 we are spending on this immoral, illegal, unnecessary war. Are those costs not a concern? I just don’t see the logic of worrying about the future, and then voting McCain. I think your genuine concern is having to pay to fix these problems, aka taxes. Doing nothing is the Reublican agenda, and it will cost much much more later down the road.

  • Zach
    June 4, 2008 at 11:02 am

    ps - $5000 per second…I was rushed.

  • Sean2
    June 4, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Looks like the negative ampaigning began with Obama last night. I guess when you really don’t have any issues of your own to discuss because he never discusses specifics that it is understandable he attacks McCain. How desperate, sad, and pathetic by Obama.

  • Dantheman
    June 4, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Zach -

    I appreciate your passion, but I stand by my statement 100%. The fiscal problem facing us today and in decades to come is of epic proportions. I’m speaking from the perspective of my country and American society, not from that of my own pocketbook. We spend 12 times as much on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as we do yearly on the War on Terrorism, and the entitlement spending is increasing at an alarming rate and in perpetuity.

    The War on average has cost us $100 billion per year. Is it money well spent? Not exactly. Money spent on preventing terrorism is well spent. It is debatable on how much the Iraq portion of the involvement in preventing terrorism, and I think we all agree on that.

    The money spent on the War will decrease. We won’t stay there and fight forever. McCain’s 100 year comment that is grossly overplayed refers to peacetime activities like we do today in many nations around the world.

    The $1.2 trillion per year spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, however, is oontinuing to increase. As the Medicare program stands right now, we will need to raise the eligibility age to 92 (yes, 9-2!) in order to maintain some type of solvency. Nobody wants to do that, but that is the kind of issue we are faced with. And that is just one example.

    The USSR economy was brought down by them spending too much of their GDP on one sector. For them, it was military. For us, it is going to be the entitlements. This is real. This is not me just saying the sky is falling.

    Not only does Obama not address this problem, he makes it many times worse.

  • Richard
    June 4, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    So predictable. It’s the entitlements, stupid. Pay no attention to the bloated military budget. Pay no attention to tax policy that hugely favors corporations and the wealthiest 1%.

  • Sean2
    June 4, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    “Pay no attention to tax policy that hugely favors corporations and the wealthiest 1%.”

    In a family who is a member of the working class, not the wealthy, I assure you the bipartisan tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have been the greatest blessing to my family, and we cannot by any means afford the tax cuts to expire. As a percentage, these tax cuts reduced my family’s taxes significantly more than the wealthiest 1% you claim, more typical rhetoric from the likes of you. I thank God that courageous senators such as Ben Nelson fought across party lines to reduce the federal income tax burden on families like mine.

  • Dantheman
    June 4, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Richard -

    The top 1% pays 34% of all taxes, but actually earns much less than that proportion.

    We have many problems to deal with in this country, but the top 1% getting off scott free is not one of them.

    We could cut the bloated military budget to 1/4 of what it is today, and we still have the exact same ticking time bomb for our kids’ and grandkids’ generation with the entitlements.

  • Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy
    June 4, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Sean2 I agree 100%,

    What were the savings exactly? How much money do you think the Bush tax cuts saved your family?

    Just wondering.

    Great Job!

  • lojasmo
    June 4, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    @ sean2

    “Looks like the negative campaigning has begun for Obama”

    Sean. You were obviously watching the wrong debate. Obama is the young black guy. McCain is the pasty octogenarian.

  • Andrew
    June 4, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Back to the historicness, it was pretty amazing knowing that I watched personally the first person of color declare that he is now a major party nominee. Historic.

  • EPDem
    June 4, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    I thought we were supposed to be talking about last night. I was there and it was amazing! I brought my cousin, my daughter and 3 of her friends (they are all 16 or 17 years old). The time in line flew by. One of her friends was interviewed by a Chicago television station, they bought Barack Obama playing cards from a vendor and played poker, and took time out for dinner. My cousin and I met a couple of interesting people in line - a student at St. Kate’s and an older gentlemen - with whom we had some great conversations. Everyone we talked with realized that we were going to witness history.

    When Barack and Michelle entered the arena there was pandemonium! He gave a fantastic speech and I particularly liked that he talked about his grandmother in Hawaii and his roots before beginning the main part of his speech. I also liked how he gave Hillary her due credit and cracked down on McCain. He is truly McSame and Bush’s 3rd term (no offense to the many Republicans who seem to love it here - I guess you must not feel at home at MDE). I screamed my lungs out and went home happy. I guess this sound’s like something a woman would write - which is great because I am one!

  • Zach
    June 5, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Dan - How does all that add up to a vote for more of the Republican agenda under McCain? None of what you wrote pointed to McCain fixing the problem. And although social security is a major concern, if you are worried about your children’s future, I think that that issue should stand well behind endless and expensive war in Iraq, staggering debt to China not to be payed for decades, 50 more years of increased global warming, and lack of adequate health care for millions of insured and uninsured Americans alike. A vote for 4 more years of Republican rule isn’t going to help solve any of the most important issues, or improve the future of anyone. 20 years from now, Social Security will be on the laundry list of issues, but it won’t be on the top. I don’t get your point. How is Obama’s addressing of these crucial issues hurting things down the road?

  • Sean2
    June 5, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Hillary won the overall popular vote by 286,687 over Obama. Even when you count the people who voted “uncommittd” in michigan (which represented not just barack, but also edwards etc) all in obama’s column, clinton wins by 48,519 …. and this is the party that opposed electoral representation in all forms in lieu of popular vote totals in 2000.

  • Kerosene Hat
    June 5, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Clinton did not, by any rational counting win the popular vote. For her to be considered the popular vote leader you have to count a state where Obama did not appear on the ballot while not counting any of the people who made their voices heard in four states, Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington. Even giving all uncommitted votes from Michigan to Obama can not be considered as there are too many variables that can not be accounted for, turn out and the fact that Clinton may have received fewer votes had people like Edwards been on the ballot. The best count as can be gathered currently is Obama up by about 151,000 or .4%. Still within the margin of error. The race was a statistical tie with the decision going to Obama.

    Of course 50% of the Democratic party was some how convinced that a one time first lady raised in a house hold of privilege, who made hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting on the board of WalMart, a position she had because of her husband, was the “blue collar” candidate. Given that, counting votes in a rational way probably doesn’t mean much.

  • Sean2
    June 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Well, Obama has a wife who received a “random” salary raise of nearly $200,000 and the Obama’s made a very profitable, controversial, and illegal? land deal with convicted felon and supporter Rezko. Doesn’t seem that Obama is exactly very “blue collar” either.

    And the most accurat estimates if you favored Obama in every aspect would have Obama up by no more than 60,000 votes or so votes. It’s very convenient for you to forge numbers and not count votes. The DNC never said Michigan votes didn’t count. They just chose not to seat their delegates, and then to halve them.

    Only one candidate failed to win a plurality of his/her party’s votes. in this primary season — Mr. Obama.

  • Ruthie
    June 5, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Sean2: Our party is a big tent, don’t you know that by now? Rich, poor, short and tall, the Dem party has them all! Sorry, feeling a bit giddy still from the awesome Obama rally…you Repubs — quit raining on our parade (not that your belligerence bothers us anymore — your actions have made us all stronger and more willing than ever to ban together and fight ya’this fall…thx for waking the sleeping giant! Congrats, Mr. Obama — you’ll do just fine! You will rise above all the Republican smears, gossip, lies, arrogance and backwards policies. It’s looking good, Dems!

  • Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy
    June 5, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    Sean2, I agree 100%,

    Everybody knows the only people who can represent poor people are the poor themselves.

    That’s exactly why no Republicans represent the poor. We instead teach them the only 100% correct ideology, ours.

    Our doors are always open to any poor people who agree with us 100%.

    No Republican who regularly spends $400 on a haircut will ever represent the poor. We instead assimilate try to assimilate them.

    Great Job!

  • Dantheman
    June 5, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    Zach -

    There is alot of range within each political party. The left is home from people like Barack Obama on the far left to guys like Colin Peterson in the middle. The right is home to Tom Coburn on the far right to Olympia Snowe in the middle. Branding it as “more of the Republican agenda” under McCain is overgeneralizing. He is alot different than Bush, as evidenced by the Rush Limbaugh’s and Jason Lewis’s of the world being genuinely upset that someone as independent as McCain is the nominee. The NeoCons wanted George Allen or Mark Sanford. McCain is too independent for them.

    How would McCain solve the problem of the century, our impending financial ruin due to the level of American GDP that will have to go toward entitlement maintenance in 10, 20, and 30 years?
    - A healthcare policy that stresses individual choice coupled with targeted government aid, rather than broad government programs.
    - Supplementing the current archaic nationalized pension program (social security) with a private choice component
    - Limiting the Medicare drug program, which was implemented in error
    - Eliminating broken govt programs and enacting a 1 year spending freeze to evaluate all govt programs

    McCain is a maverick and will follow through on this stuff. He has gone against his party on key issues. McCain Feingold campaign finance reform. Ethics reform. Global warming.

    And lets not forget — ever since 2003, yes 2003! — McCain was publicly saying that the Bush and Rumsfeld regime was going about the Iraq War all wrong. It is plastered all over public record. He is very different than Bush.

  • Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy
    June 5, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Dantheman, I agree 100%,

    If I may add, McCain has NOT recently flip flopped on any issue, despite what some people are saying.

    Great Job!

  • TwoPuttTommy
    June 5, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    “He is very different than Bush.”

    Well, there are some that are saying no matter who wins in November, a Democrat will be elected.

    Be that as it may, there is no way a 72 year old man is going to get elected. McCain’s time was 8 years ago, but Karl Rove took care of that….

  • Dantheman
    June 5, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    I agree that McCain would have been perfect 8 years ago.

    And TFRWG — it seems as if the Dems didn’t like Bush because he would refuse to change his mind, and they are now accusing McCain of (gasp) changing his mind. That happens when you’ve been on the scene for a few decades and have an opportunity to form opinions and then adjust that based on new information.

    Luckily, Obama doesn’t have that problem. He hasn’t been around long enough to have to change his mind. In fact, we are still just getting to know him for the first time. What a luxury.

    Obama is going to be very, very expensive for our nation.

  • Kerosene Hat
    June 5, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Sean2,

    The numbers I used are from RealClearpolitics.com and involve no fraud or forgery. They are the ones that actually count all the states that had fair elections, plus Florida, and don’t include the one that didn’t. There isn’t another honest way get to a total.

    As I said though when the total is so close in a contest where in some states like Minnesota totals were tallied on post it notes it is all within the margin of error. The Democratic party made the election a disaster all on it’s own and now half the people are pissed off. Incompetent leadership for decades has it’s price.

  • Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy
    June 5, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Dantheman, I agree 100%,

    However,I must point out my confusion.

    Are you pointing out that he changed his mind to embrace the new ideology that everyone knows is correct 100% of the time, or pointing out the change away from the platforms you described him as having years ago when he was the maverick who’s opinions on big issues were so wrong?

    When he used to disagree with the Republican party he was the most Liberal Republican in the Senate, and everyone knows that’s a bad thing.

    I think McCains new positions on the issues are the ones that matter because I can agree with them 100% of the time, and they are the most recent. That is who John McCain is now. There’s nothing about him now that I disagree with.

    Are you the most Liberal Republican at Minnesota Publius, Dantheman, or not? I’m confused, but grateful that at least you enjoy taking down moonbats.

    Everyone who is living very well off, thanks to the Conservative revolution, should want things to remain exactly the same.

    Great Job!

  • Ruthie
    June 6, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Dantheman: All talking points from a pinhead. Let’s get at Mr. McCain’s hx a little more, shall we? Let’s start w/ the S&L Bailout and move right along to all his lobbyist friends? Yes, it is such a luxury to get to know Obama — funny how a person who is not joined at the Washington Insider’s hip can be so appealing to all of us who want CHANGE…Repubs and Dems really differ on policy…frankly, you can take the Repub agenda and shove it up your…oh, sorry, acting like a Repub…

  • Dantheman
    June 6, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    “Everyone who is living very well off, thanks to the Conservative revolution, should want things to remain exactly the same.”

    Ahh, but you are mistaken my friend. Those who are “well off”, by someone’s arbitrary definition, understand that the world is changing. We can’t stagnate. We must figure out ways to take care of our most disadvantage while not saddling our future generations with costs that they can’t afford.

    There are things we hold dear that we shouldn’t change: Our liberty, and ability to have a decent standard of living. In order to keep those two as they are, we need to be willing to change everything else. For our generations, that include entitlements that are going to make our kids uncompetitive in a global economy.

  • Dantheman
    June 6, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Ruthie -

    What do you mean by “change”? Cuz I’m not seeing it. I’m seeing more of the same, and throwing good money after bad.

    Someone please define “change” in this context for me. And please be more specific than Mr. Obama.

Leave a Reply