Turns out the Obama campaign signed off on and edited all the speeches (and there really is nothing wrong with that*). But And their edits are revealing:
The Obama campaign struck just one line from his speech, which slammed the Republicans and the Bush administration, according to a Democratic source.
That line, addressing Republicans, read: “They’re asking for another four years — in a just world, they’d get 10 to 20.”
Now, I happen to think that's a pretty funny line; and after Scooter Libby
got pardoned and the telcos got retroactive immunityMR SUBLIMINAL Harry, Nancy, Obama: Nice work! everybody knows Bush and his gang are criminals, because you don't give pardons or retroactive immunity to the typical law-abiding citizen, even a corporate one.
So, it's funny, it's true, it holds the RepublicansMR SUBLIMINAL If that term means anything these days accountable. Why strike it out?
Well, for the same reason Leader Nance took impeachment off the table, I would think. It's a Village thing; you wouldn't understand.
NOTE * For the slow, that means anybody who has a problem with Hillary's speech should address their complaints directly to the Obama campaign.
NOTE Hat tip for linky goodness to amberglow.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
on accountability--
it's Klein talking about Luntz, but interesting--about a focus group--
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/...
"... --What do they want? Given a list of 31 personal attributes the next President might have and asked to pick the eight most important, "Accountability" finished highest with 13 votes, ...
(Add: When Luntz asked them which was more important, "accountability" or "change," the vote was 17 to 4 in favor of accountability.)
--What does "accountability" mean? That, I think, is the key to this election. ..."
Accountability
I guess I find myself in the accountability crowd. And the way the primary was handled weighs very heavy on me. I don't mind the supers choosing the nominee, but don't feed us crap that the voters mattered and for the love of a higher power, don't cheat even if the voters don't matter.
And we get?
(screwed)
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
Unity means that elections don't matter
That's what I'm learning from the roll call vote. I'm shocked. Truly shocked.
i'm not--it's expected--and to make Hillary do it
--totally expected (and shitty) too.
it shows the fear/weakness too--
why are they still protecting him with this kind of game even now?
why not all 50 states in public? what was gonna happen?
It will be interesting to see if
the RNC calls him chicken on this stuff. You'd think it would be sooooo easy to paint Obama as a coward and a wimp. Afraid of any straight-up fight and needing an institutional assist to make it to the top (which reminds me of some excellent Anglachel posts).
this is why any talk of this election being pivotal
is absolute bunk. If this election was *actually* about righting the wrongs of the last 8 years, we would hear more about repealing the PATRIOT ACT, restoring industrial regulations, and investigations into the war crimes, embezzlement, treason, and the multitude of other criminal acts committed by the Bush Administration and its cronies. But this "post-partisan" unity and change junk is merely a dog-whistle to Obama's corporate sponsors that Washington will remain business as usual.
If this election was pivotal, electability would have mattered
Obviously, with Obama as the selected nominee, it'll be another nail biter when we could've had a lock and likely a landslide with Clinton. And instead of a DINO
, we would've had an actual Democrat.
Now, there will be a Bush Third Term no matter what. Unity
!
NYT on vetting too--goes way deeper--
and more damning -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/pol...
The Speeches They Write Often Go Unspoken
haelig's right
I keep hearing over and over and over again from both old and new talking-heads, alike, how this is "the most important election, ever," and the inference is because of no other reason than that the Democrats nominated a non-white guy. If that's the only "change" we get, well, they can keep the damned change.
If this was about accountability, Obama wouldn't be going out of his way to avoid criticising the GOP where it really counts. If this was really about accountability, he'd have faught Hillary, on the issues, in the clear light of day.
I'm going to go off on a unrelated tangent, but I'm absolutely loathe to hear Obama evoke the spirit of Dr. King, tomorrow night, as his coronation. Yes, I'm dreading it even more than the run-ups to the speeches by Bill and Hillary, who were essentially asked to fall on their own swords "for the good of party unity". What I am dreading is what will almost certainly be an inappropriate use of Dr. King & Company, who were real change agents. It is just my opinion, but these folks did not put their lives and reputations on the line to simply advance 'black' issues. These folks did what they did for social justice. I have a very hard time believing that if Dr. King were alive, today, he'd be advising Obama to vote for FISA. He wouldn't be advising for Obama to go soft on issues of social and economic justice. So, it will be with great sadness, for me, to watch him evoke this man's spirit and continue to paint himself as the culmination of his dream. Dr. King and others didn't ultimately give their all so that any ole body could come and put on their mantle of social justice.
In a year where this Democratic nominee has engendered so much good-will, in a year where Democrats had this thing handed to them in the bag, in the year in which the party was practically given a mandate before any election even took place, it astounds me that the nominee would be playing footsie with the party of failure.
This isn't change. We live in not so hopeful times when a Democrat, in this year of all years, can't even sell accountability. We're not asking for the world. We're not asking for the oceans to slow. Speaking for myself, I'd be happy if the Democratic nominee would start acting like a Democrat. Speaking for myself, I'd settle for simple accountability. If that's asking too much, then maybe I need to start looking elsewhere.
I’d be happy if the Democratic nominee would start acting like a
Damon: "...I’d be happy if the Democratic nominee would start acting like a Democrat. Speaking for myself, I’d settle for simple accountability..."
Don't we feel more like Jim Jeffords all the time? (Some one should review his little book about it, actually--any takers?)
Oceans: "...the RNC calls him chicken on this stuff..." Oh if it's in their self interest, the GOP won't miss a trick with this one--they'll bring it right out when they do theirs.
Voters are only vaguely paying attention to a lot of our insider baseball stuff, so this kind of stuff works. The Dems are guilty of it this time too.