The Two Conventions: Night & Day

[BluegrassCat]

We're only one night into the DNC and Michelle Obama on her own has already bested the entire RNC, not that the RNC put up much of a fight. The RNC had angry old men yelling at empty furniture, Chris Christie reciting Machiavelli, and Anne Romney pandering to women all amidst Ryan & Romney's deep deep dishonesty.

Patrick Deval, Julian Castro and Michelle all had great speeches that spoke to the American dream but the DNC could quit now on the power of Michelle's speech and get a huge bounce. It's just not fair, Democrats have far better speeches and far more popular policies. And of course there's none of the hateful divisive rhetoric that dominated the RNC, the Democrats offered a powerful and positive message that Americans are hungry for. The rats over at Fox News will be drinking heavily tonight.

[buttslinger]

Chris Wallace on Fox was kind of excited, I didn't stick around long enough to hear what Rove said....he he.

[Ben]

What could Obama do? Well, according to the economist Dean Baker: "President Obama can actually push a free trade agenda that would mean millions of new manufacturing jobs. For example, he could pursue a competitive dollar policy that will push the dollar down to levels where U.S. goods and services are better able to compete internationally. This would bring our trade deficit closer to balance.This would be both good economics and good politics since it would have huge appeal to the bulk of the population, although it would likely lose President Obama many big donors."
Therein lies the problem.... Obama needs to get cash from the big corporate sector. So, he has to appease them. And not, say, appease the majority of the American populace.
Obama can't put in place policies which the vast majority of Americans want. That's called democracy....
I mean, corporate titans actively work to undermine democratic structures.
So, they repeat the mantra: government is bad, we should have low taxes on "job creators" and on and on and on.
Certainly the business sector, the large business sector, is in favor of big government to serve their interests. And why wouldn't they be? It's perfectly rational.
They're certainly in favor of a large military budget because the bad guys are coming.
No. It means a mass transfer of public wealth to the private sector. Which is perfectly rational.
Don't critique business executives. They're simply out to serve their own interests. It's logical....
I mean, it would be ILLOGICAL if they didn't use government for their own interests.
An executive would be lacking in lucid conduct if he or she didn't take advantage of the massive government that we have....

[Ben]

We're only one night into the DNC and Michelle Obama on her own has already bested the entire RNC, not that the RNC put up much of a fight. The RNC had angry old men yelling at empty furniture, Chris Christie reciting Machiavelli, and Anne Romney pandering to women all amidst Ryan & Romney's deep deep dishonesty.

Patrick Deval, Julian Castro and Michelle all had great speeches that spoke to the American dream but the DNC could quit now on the power of Michelle's speech and get a huge bounce. It's just not fair, Democrats have far better speeches and far more popular policies. And of course there's none of the hateful divisive rhetoric that dominated the RNC, the Democrats offered a powerful and positive message that Americans are hungry for. The rats over at Fox News will be drinking heavily tonight.

Michelle Obama's full DNC speech - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTPdKUA9Ipg)

[Ben]

Ron Paul ~ Democrats & Republicans are 'Pro War'! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc41wdAVe3A)

Obamobedience:

http://warisacrime.org/content/obamobedience

[BluegrassCat]

Man, Bubba dismantled the lies of Ryan and Romney. He talked policy in depth while always bringing it back to values. The crowd loved it. It was a much better speech than the one W. Bush gave at the RNC...oh wait, lol.

[Ben]

The wonderful whirling world of Obama and his drones:

Drone Wars and Surveillance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGJtB4UDUYA&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

What Dems don't talk about...

Who is held to account for deaths by drone in Yemen?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/drone-deaths-yemen?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

[Ben]

Yeah, Palin is right: whatever happened to "hope" and "change" -- ha ha!

Sarah Palin: "How's That Hopey-Changey Stuff Working Out For Ya?" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y02iZcTjHo)

[Ben]

Elizabeth Warren correctly points out, in my estimation, that Republicans, the Party and not Republican supporters, believe in big government to help themselves and their powerful friends. And even Ron Paul believes that too.

Elizabeth Warren: Corporations Are Not People (Sorry Romney) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg736v0aBEY&feature=plcp)

Ron Paul destroying Santorum at the CNN Arizona GOP Republican Debate - Feb 22, 2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO7zeZuQoAU)

[Ben]

Obama won't talk about drones

POLITICO...


By BYRON TAU (http://www.politico.com/reporters/ByronTau.html) 9/5/12 10:47 AM EDT


In an interview with a local Ohio TV station, President Obama refused to discuss any of his administration's targeted killing drone programs, citing national security reasons.
Asked by FOX19 reporter Ben Swann (http://www.fox19.com/story/19456470/reality-check-president-obama-one-on-one-how-does-he-justify-having-a-kill-list) about targeting killings without trials — including the death of two American citizens — Obama refused to confirm or deny the program.
"First of all, you're basing this on reports in the news that have never been confirmed by me. And I don't talk about our national security decisions in that way," Obama said about the reporter's question.
"Our goal has been to focus on al-Qaeda, to focus narrowly on those who pose an eminent threat to the United States of America," Obama said.
But Obama's reticent to discuss the program is a bit at odds with previous administration efforts to bring more transparency to the program — which officials insist is carefully targeted, legal and justified.
The details of the drone program is all but an open secret now and the Obama administration itself has pledged more transparency about the program.
Obama himself acknowledged a Pakistani drone and targeted killing program in a January online chat, when he was asked about it. Administration officials denied that Obama slipped up in revealing the program.
A few months later, Obama's counterterrorism and homeland security adviser John Brennan delivered specific remarks laying out the scope, legality and ethics of the drone programs at the Woodrow Wilson center.
"Staying true to our values as a nation also includes upholding the transparency upon which our democracy depends," Brennan said.
Attorney General Eric Holder spoke in Chicago about the legal justification the administration used to kill al-Awlaki.
And many Obama administration officials cooperated with a long New York Times piece published in May on the program — a story that has become part of the charge that administration officials are selectively leaking secrets to reporters.

[Ben]

Here's the video:

Reality Check President Obama 1-on-1: How does he justify having a "kill list"?

http://www.fox19.com/story/19456470/reality-check-president-obama-one-on-one-how-does-he-justify-having-a-kill-list

[Ben]

Reality Check: DNC Runs Over Delegates With Scripted Platform Vote - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

We're only one night into the DNC and Michelle Obama on her own has already bested the entire RNC, not that the RNC put up much of a fight. The RNC had angry old men yelling at empty furniture, Chris Christie reciting Machiavelli, and Anne Romney pandering to women all amidst Ryan & Romney's deep deep dishonesty.

Patrick Deval, Julian Castro and Michelle all had great speeches that spoke to the American dream but the DNC could quit now on the power of Michelle's speech and get a huge bounce. It's just not fair, Democrats have far better speeches and far more popular policies. And of course there's none of the hateful divisive rhetoric that dominated the RNC, the Democrats offered a powerful and positive message that Americans are hungry for. The rats over at Fox News will be drinking heavily tonight.

Well, the difference between Dems and Republicans -- the so-called "political" parties -- is that the Republican Party serve the super-rich -- or 0.01 percent of the population and the Dems -- the Party, that is -- are rapidly moving in that direction.
American politics today is in a state that has no analog in American history.
I mean, Obama, granted, is somewhere in the real world.
But Obama won't do anything about global warming. Which is scary. Because he knows it's happening [he, again, does live somewhere in the real world] and poses dire consequences for future generations.
But politics doesn't work like that. I mean, he's focused on the next 4 years. Not 40. Not 50.
And being part of the structure, well, he has to serve corporate interests. He's totally beholden to Wall Street, big oil, big mining, big insurance... :)

Democratic Donors Withhold Funds Over Absence of Climate Change from Obama Campaign Message - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtpU3ZOr4ss)

Corporate Dems Share GOP Wall St. Agenda - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSbdgQPG_pY)

[hippifried]

Well geepers... I guess we should just blow off the election & choose who will be the most powerful person in the world via YouTube poll.

[Ben]

Democrats parade Osama bin Laden's corpse as their proudest achievement

It's one thing for Democrats to fete Obama's tougher-than-thou national security credentials, but this ghoulish jingoism is warped:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/07/democrats-parade-osama-bin-laden-corpse

[broncofan]

There are a ton of things I wish Obama would do but can't because they're not politically feasible. This is the world we live in. If we are going to continue to have what appears to be a two party system it is going to come down to who offers the better choices. None of the things Obama does wrong or fails to do would be fixed under a Republican administration.

[Ben]

Do titanic transnational corporations (meaning: corporations having no allegiance to any country) have utter control over our government? If so then they've essentially become our government. Which, in essence, means we've a private government.
So, if we've a private government, composed of banks, insurance and oil companies, well, how do we hold them accountable? I mean, we can't turf Rex Tillerson out of his job like we can Obama.
So, we've essentially a private government -- ha ha ha! Everything is comical. Especially corporate control.... Or: private government.

Corporations Own Politicians - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHtKZ8Iy00&feature=plcp)

[robertlouis]

Well, the difference between Dems and Republicans -- the so-called "political" parties -- is that the Republican Party serve the super-rich -- or 0.01 percent of the population and the Dems -- the Party, that is -- are rapidly moving in that direction.
American politics today is in a state that has no analog in American history.
I mean, Obama, granted, is somewhere in the real world.
But Obama won't do anything about global warming. Which is scary. Because he knows it's happening [he, again, does live somewhere in the real world] and poses dire consequences for future generations.
But politics doesn't work like that. I mean, he's focused on the next 4 years. Not 40. Not 50.
And being part of the structure, well, he has to serve corporate interests. He's totally beholden to Wall Street, big oil, big mining, big insurance... :)

Democratic Donors Withhold Funds Over Absence of Climate Change from Obama Campaign Message - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtpU3ZOr4ss)

Corporate Dems Share GOP Wall St. Agenda - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSbdgQPG_pY)

Ben, you're a good guy and at one level there's little to choose between the Dems and the GOP in terms of their craven approach to big money, BUT, and it's a big but, don't you think that the differences beyond that critical issue, especially in relation to social policy and outlook, are enormous? The libertarians are going nowhere. Ron Paul is going nowhere in terms of electoral reality. When it comes down to a straight choice please tell me you'll vote for Obama. Anything less and it's the dark ages for America, and in your heart of hearts you know that's the truth.

[Ben]

There are a ton of things I wish Obama would do but can't because they're not politically feasible. This is the world we live in. If we are going to continue to have what appears to be a two party system it is going to come down to who offers the better choices. None of the things Obama does wrong or fails to do would be fixed under a Republican administration.

Politically feasible. Exactly. Meaning: corporations don't want it. That's why we've a profound democratic deficit in this country. Meaning: the great gap between public opinion and public policy.
I mean, either we have a democracy or we don't.
Noam Chomsky sums it up well: "... maybe the public wants it, but that’s not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed. (Corporations count. People don't.)
"This is [a] very revealing insight into how American democracy functions and what's meant by the term “political support” and “politically possible.”'
Ya know, Americans want a reduction in military spending. But they don't count.
Americans want higher taxes on the corporate sector. But they don't count. Americans want higher taxes on the rich. But they don't count.
What about handing the banks trillions of dollars? I don't really recall any democratic debate about that one -- ha ha ha!

Noam Chomsky - The Political system in the USA. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk)

[Ben]

Obamabots:

Obamabot Andy Kindler's Thoughts on Barack Obama's DNC Speech! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAR8TSfA-kA&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

Joe Rogan - The American War Machine - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl2JQfxnnHU&feature=plcp)

[robertlouis]

[QUOTE=Ben;1195315]Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

[QUOTE]

Cop out Ben, and you know it. Ballot box day. Will you stand with your arms folded and allow the Romney/Ryan ticket to win?

[Ben]

Democrats Retreat on Civil Liberties in 2012 Platform:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform


Liberalism’s old world order:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/09/liberalism%E2%80%99s-old-world-order


Obama’s five rules for covert drone strikes:

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/09/06/obamas-five-rules-for-covert-drone-strikes/

[Ben]

[QUOTE=Ben;1195315]Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

[QUOTE]

Cop out Ben, and you know it. Ballot box day. Will you stand with your arms folded and allow the Romney/Ryan ticket to win?I think, sadly, it's a one party system.... But the Dems are considered the moderate wing of the business party.... But serve business interests. Above, say, the interests of nurses, firefighters, cops etc., etc.
I mean, Obama came out and supported gay marriage. Is this a good thing? Of course it is. And Obama should be commended for "affirming" his support of gay marriage. It was a good step forward by Obama.
I mean, we should praise Obama when he does good things. And critique him when he doesn't. None of us should blindly and unthinkingly support and defend him in whatever he does. That's frightening....
I mean, in terms of civil liberties Obama has been worse than Bush. But the so-called left defend him. Why?

President Obama on Gay Marriage - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSLufPxk8s)

[robertlouis]

[quote=robertlouis;1195321][QUOTE=Ben;1195315]Both so-called political parties (albeit it's one party: the business party) and they both support the war machine, as it were. They both support corporatism. They both serve a tiny sliver of the populace....

I think, sadly, it's a one party system.... But the Dems are considered the moderate wing of the business party.... But serve business interests. Above, say, the interests of nurses, firefighters, cops etc., etc.
I mean, Obama came out and supported gay marriage. Is this a good thing? Of course it is. And Obama should be commended for "affirming" his support of gay marriage. It was a good step forward by Obama.
I mean, we should praise Obama when he does good things. And critique him when he doesn't. None of us should blindly and unthinkingly support and defend him in whatever he does. That's frightening....
I mean, in terms of civil liberties Obama has been worse than Bush. But the so-called left defend him. Why?



I'm not disagreeing for a minute on that point Ben, all I'm asking is that faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, how will you vote? Slightly similar dilemma here: I've voted Liberal and subsequently Liberal Democrat all my life, but since they've gone into government with the Conservatives and been party to things I've opposed all my life, I feel disenfranchised. But on the day, I know that I'll vote Labour rather than Conservative, partly because I'm a radical at heart, but nothing could ever bring me to vote for the moneyed, privileged, braying ninnies who make up Cameron's cabinet.

[broncofan]

Corporations dictate a lot of the positions each candidate takes. But ultimately you decide which set of options is more palatable regardless of who dicated it. I am aware of the abuses of privacy under the Bush administration and warrantless wiretapping. To be honest I am studying it chronologically and have not studied the differences under the Obama administration. It is troubling how the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure has been discarded since the so-called war on terror began. Of course, states and laws must adjust to the exigencies of the moment and properly balance security v. privacy interests. I'm not for warrantless surveillance but I certainly understand the need to re-define reasonable search in a country where we have terror cells operating. But perhaps that's not what you mean when you talk about the erosion of civil liberties.

As far as bailing the banks out, the only alternative would be to let them fail. We don't have a direct democracy nor a referendum on every issue. What the Obama administration did wrong was not ensuring that there were more strings attached in the bailout of the banks. If federal money is being used to plug their losses then perhaps more risk averse (and inevitably duller) government bureaucrats should have taken the place of the bankers who created the mess. In other words, the dispersal of federal money should have been contingent upon mass firings at the top.

Here is where Republicans fail: They want to stack the Supreme Court with Conservative Justices who will undo decades of precedent in Substantive Due Process cases including Roe v. Wade. This case holding was predicated on the inherent right to privacy. That's a civil liberty as far as I'm concerned as is a woman's right to choose to define it more narrowly. They would like to slash social programs, starting with PPACA which promises hope for individuals with pre-existing conditions and other uninsurable folks who face dire health consequences if it is repealed. They would like to keep the top marginal tax rate from being raised, abolish the estate tax or when the 5 million dollar exemption expires vote on raising it. They want to try to balance the budget while reducing taxes and help finance this top down reduction in taxes by cutting "entitlements".

They would like to continue on a state by state basis the fight against gay marriage by endorsing state constitutional changes that would pre-emptively ban same-sex marriage even if it were legalized by the state legislature. But I think the fiscal concerns of the Republicans can be summed up best by looking at two positions they take. They are in favor of tough bankruptcy laws that encourage personal responsibility. On the other hand, they are in favor of tort reform because they don't want tort victims to get a windfall. Afterall, why shouldn't a corporation have its liability limited while an individual who makes financial mistakes bears the full brunt of them? To me this sums up their stupidity and moral bankruptcy and whatever the failings are of the Democratic party they couldn't possibly fail as consistently or as completely as the GOP.

[Ben]

Author of “No Easy Day” Admits to Committing a War Crime:

http://opiniojuris.org/2012/08/29/author-of-no-easy-day-admits-to-committing-a-war-crime/

[Ben]

Ask the DNC: Is Romney Ready for the Kill List?

Video:

http://gawker.com/5941326/ask-the-dnc-is-romney-ready-for-the-kill-list

[Ben]

[quote=Ben;1195329][quote=robertlouis;1195321]

I'm not disagreeing for a minute on that point Ben, all I'm asking is that faced with a choice of Romney or Obama, how will you vote? Slightly similar dilemma here: I've voted Liberal and subsequently Liberal Democrat all my life, but since they've gone into government with the Conservatives and been party to things I've opposed all my life, I feel disenfranchised. But on the day, I know that I'll vote Labour rather than Conservative, partly because I'm a radical at heart, but nothing could ever bring me to vote for the moneyed, privileged, braying ninnies who make up Cameron's cabinet.

The late historian Howard Zinn said it fairly well back in '08:

Howard Zinn: Vote for Obama but direct action needed - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_M2W5SisPs)

[BluegrassCat]

Ben, you seem to have taken a thread about national conventions and who's better at the political dog and pony show and made it about policy. Policy is, of course, what matters but we have lots of threads on that and this was for the persuasive and rhetorical abilities of the two parties.

On your point about both parties being overly captured by moneyed interests, of course you're right, but denying any real difference between the parties is the kind of false equivalence that is just as blind and wrongheaded as those Obama supporters who won't acknowledge his civil liberties transgressions.

[Prospero]

Im all for idealism as well but it is also about reality. I would vote for Obama if i were American simply because the alternative is too appalling to think about. It might appear to make the right noises on the surface (how many billion jobs did Romney promise to create in ten minutes) but underneath they are and remain the party of privilege - white, wealthy, pandering to bigots, the gun lobby, illiberal socially, in thrall to bug business and the religious right etc etc. It would have to be Obama to stop them - if nothing else.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ben;1195292]Do titanic transnational corporations (meaning: corporations having no allegiance to any country) have utter control over our government? If so then they've essentially become our government. Which, in essence, means we've a private government.
So, if we've a private government, composed of banks, insurance and oil companies, well, how do we hold them accountable? I mean, we can't turf Rex Tillerson out of his job like we can Obama.
So, we've essentially a private government -- ha ha ha! Everything is comical. Especially corporate control.... Or: private government.
/QUOTE]

Transnational corporations are accountable to their shareholders, Ben, as you keep reminding us -but unlike US Presidents face election every year at the Annual General Meeting of the company. If Exxon had been responsible for a major disaster on a Gulf of Mexico rig would Tillerson stil be CEO? Nobody is immune, not even CEO's. Also, in the case of some industries like oil and gas, they are strategically important in many ways -to consumers, industry and the military; they employ hundreds of thousands of people; their profits are the source of handsome tax revenues for state and federal goovernment (probably not as much as they could be); and their listing on Wall St, London, Frankfurt et al, means that millions of people who live on their pension are being paid from the profits of oil companies -in the UK, for example, approx £1 in every £7 that is earned by pension funds is earned from their shareholding in BP. Most of the institutional shareholders in the big firms like Exxon, BP, Shell, Mcrosoft, Apple and the Chemicals giants are concerned with the bottom line -keep the money coming in. Their survival depends on it. Are they too big to fail? It is an intriguing question, because in a way the answer is yes, they are.

It is the nature of capitalism -possibly of all political systems- that special interests, like cream, rise to the top, yet the truth is that if you lobby hard enough and your special interest -any special interest- has traction with voters, it can create a national dialogue demanding action from legislators. In the UK many fatuous hours of political debate in the 1990s was spent debating -fox hunting! Even when Labour passed a law banning it many hunts just went ahead regardless and still do, because most people couldn't care less about it. A small group of people persuaded Labour to adopt a ban as party policy and pushed it through into the new government and law, it had some resonance with people who saw it as a small group of rich people killing animals for sport, but it was never important, yet a triumph of a relatively small lobby on an issue with no social or economic importance to the UK as a whole.

But in the US, surely the success of LGBT activists since 1970 (say) has been to generate national debate on minority issues that range from important topics such as the right not to be discriminated against at work, to the tediously precious topic of 'gay marriage'. Corporations represent millions of shareholders and often have the money to influence people; but the LGBT movement, in spite of its divisions and occasional incoherence, also has millions of supporters but gets its support in different ways; I think it is wrong to cynically paint both Democrats and Republicans as being the same because your system favours two parties battling for the 'centre ground' -some would argue it is the basis of political stability in the USA. It also suggests if you want change in America, you need to work inside the system rather than against it; or mobilise on the outside to scare the people inside the beltway to do something about whatever 'it' is....

[buttslinger]

People used to go up to FDR and say "why don't you do this? why don't you do that?"
And he'd say "you have to make me do that"

Getting Obamacare through is a miracle. Without George Bush it never would have happened.

Anyway, with this economy, the first black president can't really do anything but survive. It will be up to Hillary to take the ball and run with it.

[Stavros]

Did Hillary speak at the Convention? They covered most of it on BBC Parliament, but I don't recall seeing her. Am I right in thinking she is going to retire from politics? Is there a consensus on whether not the women Obama has appointed to various posts (excluding the Supreme Court) have been a success? Just wondering where a female Presidential candidate is going to come from.

[onmyknees]

While watching the DNC, I thought it was a skit, a parody from SNL. We had faux Cherokee Indians, TV stars who make a living with their ass, not their brains, failed governors, people smart enough to get into Georgetown Law school who are spending 3000 dollars on birth control when it can be obtained for 9 bucks a month, a video tribute from a deceased Senator, who let's face it...got away with manslaughter because of who he was, a vice president who's a convicted plagiarist, a DNC chairwoman so dumb even Anderson Cooper said she was in an alternate universe, a shouting match that resembled a European soccer match by the mere mention of god, and a former president who made the party faithful nostalgic for his economic policies, and his wet cigar....quite a cast of characters you put on display. The only misfit that was missing was Anthony Weiner ! As my favorite democrat famously said about the guy he's now attempting to prop up........."GIVE ME A BREAK.....THIS IS THE BIGGEST FAIRY TALE I'VE EVER SEEN" :dancing::dancing:

[BluegrassCat]

What a well thought-out response. It's no wonder the GOP is out of ideas if that's what passes for conservative wit. :dancing::dancing::dancing:

[trish]

Calm down OMK. No need for hysterics. You're gonna give your senile old brain an aneurysm. After all, we could've gone with Betty White... probably should have... but we didn't.

[buttslinger]

Did Hillary speak at the Convention? They covered most of it on BBC Parliament, but I don't recall seeing her. Am I right in thinking she is going to retire from politics? Is there a consensus on whether not the women Obama has appointed to various posts (excluding the Supreme Court) have been a success? Just wondering where a female Presidential candidate is going to come from.

Hillary was feverishly doing God's good work last week somewhere in Asia, or something, and as for 2016, lemme put it this way: I'm betting OMK a thousand bucks that there'll be another Clinton Ass sitting in the Oval Office come 2017. ha ha ha!

[Stavros]

But does Chelsea have the experience for the job??

[trish]

But does Chelsea have the experience for the job??

She has a more mature, deeper and less selfish outlook than Romney, Ryan, Christie, Santorum, Gingrich and the rest of the lot all bundled together.

[robertlouis]

But does Chelsea have the experience for the job??

WTF does John Terry have to do with this? :dancing:

[onmyknees]

Here's stupidy personified. They cheer lead so hard, they make utter fools of themselves. These 2 idiots share more than a TV studio...they share a brain. Maybe I missed it...did these 2 have a speaking role at your convention too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwNEB6A0_NU#!


Even the NY Times had to report what the drop from 8.3 to 8.1 really meant.


"The nation’s employers eased up on hiring in August, making it clear that the economy was stuck in low gear.





Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics





Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.


Read All Comments (867) » (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/business/economy/us-added-96000-jobs-in-august-rate-fell-to-8-1.html?pagewanted=all#comments)

The pace of job creation, disclosed in government figures released on Friday, fell far short of the stronger showing at the start of the year. It presents a fresh challenge to President Obama just two months before the election. It also provides more ammunition for Republicans, who say the country needs a new economic course.
While the weak report reverberated on the campaign trail, traders and economists immediately focused on the Federal Reserve, betting increasingly that its policy makers will take new action to stimulate the economy when they meet next week.
The nation added 96,000 jobs in August (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), compared with a revised figure of 141,000 in July and well below the 125,000 level economists had expected. Over the last six months, job growth has averaged 97,000 a month, typically not enough to absorb new entrants to the labor force, let alone cut the unemployment rate significantly.
“This is one of those reports that as you dig deeper, it looks less friendly,” said Ethan Harris, chief United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “The improvement in the rate was purely due to people who gave up looking for jobs.”
For August, the jobless rate did fall to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, but that was largely because more people left the work force entirely. The government report showed that the overall labor force dropped by 368,000 workers in August. The portion of the population in the labor force fell to 63.5 percent, the lowest level since September 1981.
“Politically, you can spin the drop in the rate as a positive, but it’s a sign of weakness,” Mr. Harris said. “The economy is slowing down and it wasn’t very robust to begin with.”
As job growth in the United States has cooled in recent months, European economies have weakened as the debt crisis (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/european_sovereign_debt_crisis/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) deepened there. And the Chinese economy has shown signs of a sharp slowdown recently.

[Prospero]

Lest we forget - eight years of Bush as President led to the greatest US debt and America's lowest standing overseas. 0bama has had less than four years to begin to clean-up this mess.

[hippifried]

But does Chelsea have the experience for the job??
She'll be old enough, she knows money, she has the best advisors in the world, & her butt is the best campaign speech in my lifetime.

[Stavros]

It might be Sunday morning but I'm heading off to YouTube right now!

[Prospero]

Compare and contrast....

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" JFK

And this year..." "We, the people, recognise that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals and those who died in their defence." President Obama

And Paul Ryan: "I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey, where I could think for myself, decide for myself. That is what we do in this country. That is the American dream. That's freedom and I will take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."

[Prospero]

An essay from a UK newspaper this weekend by Michael Cohen, senior fellow at the American Security Project.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/09/michael-cohen-us-presidential-elections

Over the past two weeks, both major American political parties held their nominating conventions – and that's pretty much where the similarities end. After interminable speeches, cloying videos and occasional moments of rhetorical eloquence, the philosophical and tonal divide between them has never felt broader. Quite simply, Democrats and Republicans operate in two completely distinct realms, one that is defined by an attachment to reality and one that is increasingly detached from it.

If their three-day convention in Tampa is any indication, Republicans reside in a fantasy world where government plays no role but that of malevolence, where the free market is the salvation to all that ails this nation and where the country is locked in a Manichaean struggle between the forces of freedom and a failed, socialist interloper named Barack Obama.

It was a point driven home to me in Tampa when I overheard a Republican delegate declare in a sweet voice, reflecting more pity than anger: "There's a communist living in the White House."

For four decades, Republicans have relied on an undercurrent of white resentment toward social and economic change to maintain their pre-eminence in national politics. But with an African-American president and the country moving closer to "minority-majority" status, that dominance is slipping away and it feeds the sense of anger and desperation they tried to keep hidden in Tampa, but that all too often crept to the surface. Indeed, the entire Republican "you didn't build that" attack against Obama (a line taken brazenly and dishonestly out of context) is reminiscent of decades of Republican talking points that sought to cast their party as the defender of hard-working Americans and the Democrats as the defender of dependency, particularly for poor minorities.

There was in Tampa a genuine sense of frustration about the direction in which the country is heading, which led to an often harsh message, perhaps best exemplified by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who declared: "Our leaders of today have decided it's more important to be popular, to say and do what's easy and say yes rather than to say no, when no is what is required." The dominant political attribute of the last four years is the increasing ideological inflexibility and lack of social empathy from the Republican party, and the convention only confirmed it. On the flipside, the Democrats in Charlotte were practically unrecognisable in their self-confidence and the discipline of their political message. Michelle Obama's well-crafted speech sought to cast Democrats as the true defenders of the middle class, while Bill Clinton's rambling brilliance on Wednesday offered a sweeping defence of Obama's record and an indictment of Republican intransigence.

Moreover, a party once derided for playing interest-group politics showed no hesitancy about going down that road in Charlotte. The convention was full of obvious appeals to women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, young people and, in the constant references to the successful bailout of the US car industry, organised labour. These are the groups that form the backbone of the Democratic coalition and are essential to the party's long-term success. Democrats far better than Republicans appreciate the destiny of demographics and they have done a far more effective job of cultivating these voters. Indeed, the contrast between the hues in Charlotte and Tampa was remarkable. The Democratic party is a party that looks like the palette of the American experience, not just in skin colour, but in class level. The Republican party (the one in the Tampa convention hall) is one that looks like Sunday brunch at a country club.

Even on national security, an issue on which Democrats have long suffered in comparison with Republicans, the party that killed Osama bin Laden and brought US troops home from Iraq didn't just flex its military muscles, it openly derided Republicans. When Obama joked: "My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy," it felt like a transformational moment in the politics of national security.

On economic issues, Democrats have a tougher hand to play as the blame for the country's mediocre recovery is pretty much the only thing standing between Obama and re-election. Nonetheless, Democrats sounded the note of economic populism, as they attacked Mitt Romney for his wealth and support for tax cuts for the richest Americans. There was a time when Democrats recoiled from such obvious appeals to class warfare; now they seem to revel in them, secure in the knowledge they face off against an opponent and a political party (because of its unstinting opposition to upper-income tax increases) that can be so easily confronted on this issue.

In her populist speech in Charlotte, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren declared: "Our middle class has been chipped, squeezed and hammered… people feel like the system is rigged against them. And here's the painful part: they're right." According to Warren: "The Republican vision is clear: 'I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own'." Warren wasn't blowing smoke. Consider the words of Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan: "I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey, where I could think for myself, decide for myself… that is what we do in this country. That is the American dream. That's freedom and I will take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."

Compare this with how President Obama defined freedom in his speech: "We, the people, recognise that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals and those who died in their defence."

The choices offered by Ryan and Obama are essential issues in this campaign. One party wants to use the powers of government to ameliorate social inequalities; the other seeks to reduce it into oblivion. The irony is that Americans are generally predisposed to take Ryan's side of this argument, but the uncompromising manner in which the Republicans speak of economic freedom has left them vulnerable to the Democrats' more inclusive, hopeful and optimistic message.

With a decided advantage in the electoral college and a stubborn but narrow lead in the polls, Obama has the political wind at his back. The conventions, while preaching mainly to the converted, have likely given him a near-term boost. While hardly impossible, it's difficult to see what Romney can do to shift the trajectory of the race. But even more difficult is seeing how Republicans, if they lose, can find a long-term message that competes with the Democrats' vision. If the national conventions showed us anything, it is that the winds of political fortune are not blowing in a Republican direction.

[Ben]

What, of course, we didn't see:

What the Mainstream isn't saying about DNC | Think Tank - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ZAm4arqJM&feature=plcp)

[trish]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/28/justice/georgia-soldiers-plot/index.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/28/facts-about-the-anarchist-militia-who-plotted-to-overthrow-obama.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/29/obama-assassination-plotted-by-american-soldiers_n_1838922.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/28/justice/georgia-soldiers-plot/index.html