Charlie Rose

Morgan  09/10/2008 10:20 AM Report

Hillary supporters voting for McCain and Palin who are fundamentally opposite of what Hillary stands for?? are you kidding me? How can you make a 180 turn on issues based on which candidate is biologically female! Being a woman doesn't make Palin pro-women, she's the end of women's movement. Before you cast your votes be honest with yourselves. There is nothing wrong with voting republican if that's what you like to see for your country: 4 more years of the same 8 recent years. But if you do, please don't claim you were a CLinton supporter, because she does not!

Joan P  09/05/2008 12:22 PM Report

To read Hillary supporters say they will support McCain/Palin says to me they were not Hillary supporters at all.

Besides being on the opposite side of the issues from Hillary, Palin is a lightweight.

Alex  09/05/2008 03:40 AM Report

Jon Meacham also owes me a lunch. I have been registered as a Democrat since age 21, am a college-educated, California liberal female, and contributed the maximum amount to Hilary's campaign. I am thrilled with the nomination of Sarah Palin, even though I do not agree with her positions. I am willing to vote for John McCain in order to have a female VP. I simply cannot connect with Obama, who seems very self-absorbed and ambitious.

Jim N.  09/05/2008 01:28 AM Report

Somebody owes me lunch too. My wife and I are both long time Democrats and Hillary Clinton voters, but right now, if the election were held tomorrow, we'd vote for McCain over Obama.

We're voting for character, not fairy tales.

lisa v  09/05/2008 01:03 AM Report

Someone owes me lunch, and when you do so I will easily explain the reasons for changing from Hilary Clinton to John McCain, as I have. Do you honestly think we "3 middle aged women" (I can give you many more women than that) are so addle pated that we would compromise the future of our children and ourselves so lightly. As a 48 year old mother of 3 boys, ages 9-13,their future is of the utmost importance in my considerations in this election. Shame on you. Truly, we are not all the dull and uneducated homebodies you seem to think us to be.

Preston  09/03/2008 07:19 PM Report

The economically growing world keeps the USA afloat by investing in the USA because of the economic stability of the USA and they also expect the USA to protect their asses from all the jealous hostilities bumping into each other. It's a house of cards and no easy answers. Just gotta fight for what's right, and parrrrr-teeeeee.

Neil MacCallister  09/03/2008 06:50 PM Report

Dear TABS, ..I prefer neither the "Bureaucratic-SocialService Complex", nor the "Military-Industrial Complex". There is just no such thing as a "benign dictator" in my experience. Currently, though, the "MIcmplx" is only being fed 5% of the budget, while the "BSScmplx" is consuming 40%. Where do we need to lose the pounds? And especially: Do we really want to encourage more government programs? (.."private enterprise pograms"?) Sen. Obama says, "Yes"! ..What do YOU say?

TABS  09/03/2008 05:45 PM Report

Dear Neil:___________ Did you ever see a Bureaucracy that didn't ask for a budget increase or did not want to expand its mission? The US since JFK has done nothing but expand the Bureaucracy. The last President who held the line was Eisenhower. JFK was the biggest boon to the Military Industrial Complex there ever was. Eisenhower knew the military mind set and kept the military budget down. JFK not wanting to appear soft on communism started a huge conventional military buildup. That was followed by Guns & Butter LBJ who expanded the role of the Federal government to include social issues as well. Until you know what we have today.

Neil MacCallister  09/03/2008 04:27 PM Report

Sorry, TABS, ..I guess I floated out there a bit too, eh? Oh well, .."Happy Wednesday"!

Neil MacCallister  09/03/2008 04:00 PM Report

Tabby, ..I know you like to swim in the deep water, but I'll bet all the candidates are hoping we'll stay a bit closer to shore. Myself, I just don't like to see a society with such a great dependence upon "public sector" employment. In fact, if we do follow that plan to "tax the rich" in order to "employ the poor" at the task of "maintaining the infrastructure" within which those "rich" produce their profits, ..well, I would not call that a return to the "purity of our essence", ..I would call that a return to "slavery".

Robin Casey  09/02/2008 10:03 PM Report

Hi Rose,

I appreciate your hard work in covering the Democratic National Convention. I have admired your work for years. Currently I am sharing your convention coverage on my site The Birds Eye View Newsstand @ http://www.isavesmart.com. I hope you and your viewers enjoy how I have presented your coverage. Keep up the good work. Robin

TABS  09/02/2008 07:54 PM Report

Dear Citizen Neil:................Citizen Obama wants to turn Kalifornication into Obamanation. The goal is to have 100% of the work force on the government payroll. Then everybody will be happy. Yes we can have it all! Yes we can have it all...It is about time that the Round Heads took back the government from the "Caesarist" Party of GW Bush...........The GW Bush administration has done nothing but sully the name and reputation of America with his capitalist warmongering sychophants. GW Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity.....Only President Obama can bring the intelligence and common sense needed to restore Americas place as the leader of human rights, democracy and a regard for the environment that is needed to save the planet earth from further desecration....To accomplish this President Obama must lead America away from the selfish "MEism" of the profit motive to one where we regard every human beings welfare as that of our own. We must return the rights of the people to the people and not be held hostage to the special interests that sap the purity of our essence.

Neil MacCallister  09/02/2008 07:24 PM Report

And if the numbers I've heard are wrong, ..I hope to some day open a newspaper and be informed of something more important than that "Britney goes commando", or "Lots of people want change".

Neil MacCallister  09/02/2008 07:16 PM Report

Sorry, espy, ..but it's true, ..the national defense budget consumes less than 5% of budget, ..but social Security Security and Social Health Care consume more than 40%. And if more US workers join the public payroll (..and live like Senators!) even more of that U.S. budget will get consumed, ..with no concomitant enlargement of manufactured goods or productive services. All those extra workers will be hired to spread around a dwindling supply of product and profit. You'd better due what so many government workers are doing right now: Getting guaranteed contract levels (and future increases) in a futile attempt to ensure "their share" of that drying pie. It can't last, ..good luck, espy.

sock puppet  09/02/2008 05:03 PM Report

Neil MacCallister - You mean as opposed to the billions for the military, more billions for M-I contracts, billions more for Blackwater, billions for the VA, billions for the billions (that last is called interest), and the trillions it all adds up to?

Neil MacCallister  09/02/2008 03:51 PM Report

Is Candidate Obama's 'Change' just an acceleration of America's shift from private employment to public employment?

There are now about 21 million people nationwide, who work for our Federal, State, County, or City governments. Here in California, where our budget 'plan' is now 2 months dead, over one-third of our workers are employed at either a Federal, State, County, or City agencies.

Tonight, Sen. Obama called for more public spending, 'strengthened' Social Security payments, more money to the teacher's unions (although public 'education' already consumes 50% of our CA state budget), and the offering of the public-paid 'Federal Employees Health Benefits Program' to everyone. Under Sen. Obama's vision, many more of us will now also be taken on as one of these 'workers of the state'.

Is that really 'a hope we can believe in'? ..or 'a demise we will suffer'? (Facts are from wikipedia, please correct if you have better.)

IPPS  09/01/2008 12:47 AM Report

The International Probosces Preservation Society (IPPS) has requested space and time to put out an all points cautionary alert. It is paramount that certain precautions be taken in direction changes. This is more critical for some than others. A slow arcing wide turn coupled with an agreed signaling arrangement should minimize any long term damage. Sudden sharp turns should be avoided at all costs. This public service announcement, courtesy of IPPS, has been occasioned by a marked increase in the type of activity on these CR posts that has caused justifiable alarm. Your cooperation is appreciated.

hd  08/30/2008 10:16 PM Report

Another glaring omission, and a huge part of what differentiates the tone of this speech from most others, was Obama's attempt to find middle ground on the most contentious social issues of our time. I imagine many Americans find appealing the idea that we could agree on non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and on the need to address unwanted pregancy, for example. Not to mention Obama's pledge not to demonize McCain or his party. These calls for unity were significant and moving. Not even mentioned by your guests!

hd  08/30/2008 10:07 PM Report

I'm disappointed by Ms. Kantor's and Mr. Hunt's analysis. Too often when I have the opportunity as I did tonight, to watch the event commentators are covering, and then listen to the commentary I feel this disconnect. Both guests seemed wedded to the ideas they had prior to the speech, which were not influenced in the slightest by the speech. Why for instance does Ms. Kantor focus on Obama's need to demonstrate to people that he is just like them? Why do both she and Mr. Hunt insist that this election is "all about Obama"? I thought Senator Obama was incredibly effective in making the point that the campaign, insofar as it is and will be effective, is about most Americans. I found it very strange that neither of these guests even mentioned this. Perhaps they weren't persuaded by this message, but at least acknowledge the strategy if you are supposed to be analyzing the speech/event.

At times like this, I think it would be more informative and more valuable to ask non-pundit viewers for reactions, than to turn to pundits whose positions are, apparently, hermetic.

Preston  08/30/2008 06:25 PM Report

Yes, you are correct TABS. But I too am correct, Also Google - General McClellan Lincoln baboon.

TABS  08/30/2008 05:34 PM Report

Actually Preston it was a Colonel Wainwright that called Lincoln a "Baboon"

TABS  08/30/2008 05:30 PM Report

The Revolution is Here................................................................................................. .......................................................................................

Julius Caesar was a member of the peoples party, Oliver Cromwell was a member of a religious peoples party, Lenin was a member of the peoples party, Hitler was a member of the peoples party. The only way one can rise to ultimate power is by overthrowing the existing order of things through a democratic election. Otherwise the existing order is not about to make room for somebody new. Rising to the top of the peoples party is the only way to accomplish that end.................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................... ...................................

Barrack Obama is nobodies fool nor tool. What his exact intentions are with regards to his own power remains to be seen. What is for certain was that he was able to outfight, out smart the ablest of the Democratic Party,Hillary and Bill Clinton. It is true that without the help of the Kennedy's he would not have been able to accomplish that for he needed the organization and 50 years of political favors. It is also true that the Kennedy's don't need to prepare an acceptable script for him either. Barrack Obama is truly a left wing Democrat that matches Teddy Kennedy's own Liberalism......................................

More to come...

TABS  08/30/2008 04:13 AM Report

Dear Preton: It was Sec of War Stanton.

Joanna of Rose Cottage  08/30/2008 01:45 AM Report

Amilius, thanks for reminding me about Jon Meachum (and my appreciation to you, Charlie, for inviting one journalist, at least, who didn't appear to be wearing "rose" coloured glasses among your panelists). And Tevo, I liked your succinct statement addressed to me. I'll have a cuppa anytime with you and discuss our differences of opinion:) Move over Charlie!

MotherLodeBeth  08/29/2008 10:32 PM Report

Watching Charlie Rose and his guests gush over the Hollywood production Obama put on tells me they have NO idea what we average Americans sitting at home thought. It was a show and little else. And Denver is a liberal city so getting that stadium filled wasn't all that hard.

Preston  08/29/2008 06:53 PM Report

Keith McLeod,... I can see it.

Keith McLeod  08/29/2008 06:38 PM Report

Thursday night Obama touched all the bases the pundits said he had to do. It is a difficult and rare thing to execute. Most successful speeches focus on one idea or theme. He exceeded this standard.

What is so extraordinary about this candidate is not only his speaking skills, but his ability to grow, and then risk, then expose himself to his campaign decisions. His calmness is remarkable. He is at ease with himself, and the content of his character.

Consider his trip to the troops, visiting Germany and appearing in front of a stadium of 200,000 people, the build up to his V.P. pick, the use of the internet, the 4th night of the Democratic Convention held in a stadium, and his organization. In addition there is the 10's of thousands, no millions he has brought into the Democratic Party, the books he has written,and his speech on race in America.

An overlooked area by the media is his 2 daughters, and their appearch on stage after his wife's speech Monday night, and Thursday's night's speech. They are worth a few million viewer votes just by themselves. This is a generational time period change.

Truly this is a historic and a very special time. I am glad I am alive to see it.

Keith McLeod

Jonathan  08/29/2008 05:06 PM Report

Half the community credentials for Obama's speech went to Coloradans. The remainder were given to those coming from out-of-state. It wasn't just "liberal Denverites" filling the stadium.

Neil MacCallister  08/29/2008 04:20 PM Report

Tonight’s speakers told their hopes of “witnessing history”. We saw a stadium crowd pounding for its chance of “witnessing history”. Perhaps bored of the easy-credit McMansions, SUV’s, and flat screen TV’s, everyone was now yearning for a chance to “witness history”. As Dr. Cornel West later mentioned on Tavis Smiley’s show, “We need a memory for the future!” Electing a President seemed a secondary priority, the first priority was a chance to view a spectacle: “Wake up America! The revolution is now being televised!” No one in the business wants to miss the latest “opening night”. Jodi Kantor suggests Sen. Obama may awaken a “dormant idealism” of these participants. Jon and Doris channeled Lincoln, FDR, King, and Reagan to the cause. Lawrence O’Donnell remarks how Kerry (..and Kennedy?) will finally “feel vindicated” if they can but get their signature (Obama) into the White House! Charlie questions Sen. Obama’s capacity to ensure a historical change: “In the coming days, will he tell us what he is going to do?” James Clyburn responds, “This was just Democrats here to see this guy, and be a part of history.” Will Sen. Obama satisfy the people-of-today’s need for historical meaning in ourselves and our time? Are we really so starved for history? Are we disappointed that riots did not arise at the Beijing Olympics? ..or that Hillary did not burn her party card in Denver? Well, at least we have Barack throwing a few stones into the water: “I have a goal of oil independence, and better schools, and lower taxes, and stopping wasteful spending!” But as Jodi reminded us, “His campaign has not yet been able to package his economic plans.” In lieu of those economic plans, Sen. Obama declared, “It is business’ responsibility to provide American jobs!” I guess I’ll stay home, and wait for that letter. I can watch more television. Which revolution comes on today?

Denver Laird  08/29/2008 03:21 PM Report

As in today's NYT I do NOT understand Jodi Kantor's "insight" that, somehow, Obama is elite, aloof, etc etc etc. "WHy does this guy get to be on this spot tonight?" WHy? BECAUSE he's so incredibly brilliant, analytic, charismatic, policy-oriented and driven to make a difference. AFter 8 YEARS of the corrupt, inept and scary Bush Administration, he is a gigantic change for hte better.

Ricardo C. Amaral  08/29/2008 12:58 PM Report

Barack Obama is using the slogan CHANGE during his presidential campaign. It seems to me that every time he is on television the word change is everywhere.

I still have no idea change to what.

If they are using it as a campaign slogan I guess they expect that most people probably will buy his call for change, even though it could end up to be a change for the worst.

But since we are not sure what kind change we are going to get if he is elected president

that also has its advantages since when you don’t know where you are going any path it will take you there.

I still can't believe that the Democratic Party is not racing Secretariat (Al Gore) in November 2008. If Al Gore was the Democratic Party nominee he would leave John McCain far behind in November 2008 and he would be elected president of the US with a solid mandate.

The lesson that we all going to learn one more time is that it does not matter how bad things are in the US economy - at the end of the day it does not matter since the Democratic Party knows how to lose a major election even one that should have been a cake walk.

Kim  08/29/2008 10:56 AM Report

Dear Mr. Rose,

From time to time I have seen parts of your show. I forget how much I enjoy your interviews, topics for discussion and guests. You are truly what jouralism was in the past and should be in the furture. You ask intelligent, thought provoking questions that allows the interviewee to reveal insightful information. I have a bad taste in my mouth with today's journalism format. The public needs to have information provide so that they can make their own inform opinion. Why we have settled for pundits who sit around pretending that they know more than the American public. They are far too busy hearing themselves talk and trying sensationalizing the news that they never ever get answers with any depth from their interviewee.

I wish your show was on every night during the news time slot so there would be a alternative to what is on.

Thank you,

K. Norman

Preston  08/29/2008 09:18 AM Report

Actually TABS, it was General McClellan who called Abraham Lincoln "a well intentioned baboon".

TABS  08/29/2008 06:04 AM Report

Was this what Charlie et all was talking about when they described Obama as being aloof?

Comment by TABS on Tuesday, Aug 26 at 03:56 AM

.......................................... Mr Obama is incapable of "coming down to earth from 30,000 feet." Obama has learned to live in the rarefied air of intellectualism as an avoidance mechanism for facing the uncertainties and insecurities of his upbringing.

TABS  08/29/2008 05:33 AM Report

Abraham Lincolns greatness stemmed from his humility and thoughtfulness which came out of the utter despair that he felt during his life. Lincoln could take himself with a grain of salt and laugh at his own foibles, because that is the only thing he could do with the despair, as it was so overwhelming. Out of that despair came a great understanding of mans sensibilities and the human condition. Abraham Lincoln had ambition to leave his mark on history, but he never really thought of himself as being special, he was a self effacing man which again came out of the despair he felt. He just thought of what he did as being the best way to accomplish a task, to attain a goal. People certainly didn't think of him as being special, no one heaped adulation on him, one cabinet member even called him an "Ape." People who were close to Lincoln sooner or later began to realize that he was no ordinary man that there was more to him than met the eye. During his lifetime Lincoln never received popular adulation, but the moment he died the nation realized what it had lost.

TABS  08/29/2008 04:40 AM Report

There is only one way for Obama to become a transcendent leader who can accomplish the changes he talks about. He must proclaim that members of his own party are on the wrong side of history as well. Not only GW Bush and McCain but the likes of Nancy Pelosi, when her first statement after becoming the house minority leader was, "I am hear to counteract the extremist policies of George Bush." Mr Obama has to acknowledge that people in his own party are part of the problem as well. It takes two to tango. That is the only way that he can transcend partisan politics and accomplish the change that he speaks about. That is the only way that Obama can become a transcendent leader and not just another run of the mill politician. Does he have feet of clay or is he authentic? ........BTW: I don't write the rules, I just understand them.

Amy  08/29/2008 04:24 AM Report

Hats off to Obama for the best political speech in memory and hats off to Charlie and his team, for the best coverage of it, on TV. .... I saw the speech with a friend who voted for Hillary, and up until now, has had doubts about whether Obama was tough enough to take on both the Republican Party and even the job itself. But tonight his fears were completely laid to rest as Obama gave the "Daddy" speech that many have been waiting to hear. .... The big difference between this speech and all of Obama's previous ones, was his demeanor; at once presidential, and personable.

Bengal   08/29/2008 04:08 AM Report

I love this show! Seeing Al Hunt hold the mic and ask Halperin questions tonight was great!

It is no surprise if smart members of the media are gravitating toward supporting Obama. If you can follow what is being said in his speeches, if you can comprehend the historical significance of his nomination, and if you can respect the genuineness of his character, then it is impossible not to show admiration for Barack Obama. Tonight's speech embodied the best of this man. I was not sold on Obama until tonight.

But again, I just wanted to say how much I love this show. This is my favorite show on television, and I try to get all my friends to watch it.

Nick  08/29/2008 03:20 AM Report

Charlie, you made me sick with all the Obama love dripping from your panelists this week. Jodi Kantor should get an engagement ring from Mr. O. Love has blinded her - calling him, "...gifted, special, halo, unique, etc." "3 years in the Illinois senate and 2 years in US Senate"...lots of experience.

I hope you get panelists for the Republican conventions with much objectivity.

amilius  08/29/2008 03:03 AM Report

Listening to the two former classmates, it occurs to me that Obama, unlike most of the commentators this evening, understands that the Golden Rule- Choose for others only as one would choose for one's self- guarantees gracious choices when honored. Obama understands Grace, the awareness that choice might align potential with possibility for purposes of appreciation. Obama understands that Gracious is the demonstration of this awareness. Charlie and everyone else except the former classmates willfully ignores it. They know it. They just choose to ignore it. Interesting demonstration coming from a man who claims to understand faith like Meacham, no?

amilius  08/29/2008 02:54 AM Report

Jon Meacham just sacrificed all notions of credibility by suggesting that Obama's biography was insufficient. Willful ignorance, conspicuously flaunted, ill-serves Meacham's tattered 'non-partisan' credibility, especially when he willfully ignores the cospicuous and public flaws of Obama's addled opponent as well. Who is the ill-informed, sceptical witch from the NYT further shredding what little is left of the old grey lady's credibility? She deserves to look for a new job now.

tevo d  08/29/2008 02:05 AM Report

PANELISTS: I find this weeks's crew of experts delivering the soundest reviews of the convention. ....I think C.R. on P.B.S. is the ultimate in sane, deep coverage...very engaging for me, Joanna.

Joanna  08/29/2008 01:36 AM Report

I was hoping Charlie's cameraman would give us a peek outside the stadium where all the many stripes of protestors, demonstrators, citizens, non-citizens, etc... would give Charlie and guests something stimulating to discuss tonight...

I gave up and watched a BBC Inspector Lynley DVD instead. Next week I'll check and see if there's been a change of personalities and views discussing the Republican convention.

James Brancheau  08/29/2008 01:29 AM Report

This evening the lead up to Obama's acceptance speech was good how ever when Obama spoke he finally delivered enough information as to what he would like to achieve. I just hope that he is addiquiatly grounded to realize that most of what he would like to achieve will never be realized. It is good to set your goals high and to achieve any thing in DC you have to set very high goals because it will motivate you to go after your goals with a zeal that is second to nothing.

Hope fully congress will be sufficiently on his side to achieve most if not at least half what he would like to achieve.

As for the rebates of the Bush administration most of that money went to easing the economic problems of those who received that money some went to the retailers despite there attempts to give incentives to get the money.

Obama showed tonight that he not only can deliver a good speech but has a true agenda as to what he wants to achieve. His tax cuts and closing the loops holes for the wealthy are good ideas. Republicans want to make more loop holes how ever looking at the loss of jobs in the nation which republicans can not see since they do not look down to the middle classes only up the wealthy can never see.

Once again he made a skeptic a believer.

tevo d  08/29/2008 01:09 AM Report

OBAMA"S SPEECH:is it just me or has this been Too Built Up to possibly live up to expectations..............I appreciate what this guy has to say..........but I don't enjoy watching/hearing him very much. ...........I am intrigued and awestruck by who he is...how he came this far....but I resent hearing about the south side of chicago over and over while Not Once hearing the word Harvard........I feel played, like I might be too thick to value having a president brilliant enought to be an Ivy League grad.....it smells of that dirty word "politican"........Michelle Obama moves me with her visible depth and conviction of caring in the various reaction shots over the past nights.....however it is very dobutful she and her husband "never talked about being senator or president"....c'mon.

Ricardo C. Amaral  08/29/2008 01:03 AM Report

The truth is: if Al Gore was the Democratic Party nominee right now then he would be at least 20 percentage points ahead of John McCain.

And Al Gore would have been elected president of the US in November 2008.

For the last 2 years I have been a die hard Al Gore supporter, and now I will be voting for Ralph Nader in November 2008.

Riacrdo C. Amaral  08/29/2008 12:51 AM Report

April 1, 2008

Here are some of the excuses that the talking heads can talk about and the political analysts can write about after the Democratic Party defeat in November 2008:

1) Why the Democratic Party lost the election?

2) The self-destruction of the Democratic Party in 2008.

3) Here is why the Democratic Party split along the lines of gender and race and the party imploded before the general election of 2008.

4) The Democratic Party thought that bringing race as an issue it would work on its favor in the presidential election of 2008, and instead the race issue ended up splitting the country for years to come.

5) The Democratic Party thought that they would make history by electing the first woman or the first black man as president of the United States. But instead the Democratic Party lost an election that was on the bag.

6) The Democratic Party wanted to make political history in November 2008 by electing the first woman or the first black man, but instead they made another type of history since a Republican Party victory in November 2008 allowed that party the opportunity to push the Supreme Court all the way to the radical right.

7) The Democratic Party and the presidential election of 2008; a classic case study about how to win a battle, and lose the war.

I could go on and on… But I hope you guys got the point.

If Al Gore had been drafted at the Democratic Party convention as the nominee for the general election – I am sure Al Gore can win that election in November 2008 with a strong mandate.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to observe the obvious that Hillary and Obama can’t win the general election in November 2008, because they are both damaged goods and the situation on the Democratic Party is beyond repair before the general election.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835&perpage=6&pagenumber=123

.

Aesopia  08/29/2008 12:47 AM Report

Calling Sour grapes is an age old practice when the other guy has what you want but can't get.

Oh how John McCain and the Republicans wish they could pull off something like Obama and the Democrats and did tonight.

They have a record under W. Bush that is neither substasive, educated nor eloquent. The choice is clear four more years of mediocrity or something new that dazzles.

Ricardo C. Amaral  08/29/2008 12:41 AM Report

August 21, 2008

SouthAmerica: Five months ago I already knew that Barack Obama was going to lose the presidential election in November 2008, but the talking heads on television it seem to me that they are surprised that at this stage of the game Obama is running neck a neck with McCain.

The Democratic Party lost this election a long time ago – And as I have been saying all along this was nothing more than an experiment that is going to cost the blacks and woman a very high price.

This is becoming a pathetic place anyway, and the Democratic Party deserved to lose this election for lack of vision about what it was at stake and the cost of losing such an election – and they decided to go for the experiment anyway.

Now the Democratic Party just have to learn how to live for a long time into the future with a Supreme Court far to the right – and that will happen when President John McCain nominates the next 2 people to that court.

I knew all along that Barack Obama was going to lose the presidential race and I don’t need to wait until November 2008 to figure that one out.

Here is what I wrote on this thread on April 1, 2008.

Here are some of the excuses that the talking heads will be talking about and the political analysts can write about after the Democratic Party defeat in November 2008:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835&perpage=6&pagenumber=123

.

RE Mant  08/29/2008 12:12 AM Report

Half of tonight's speech, which was not all that different from his usual stump speeches, bemoaned the lack of help for hard-working Americans, and the other half, extolled the virtue of self-reliance, and made it reasonably clear that along with ending govt support for fat-cats, he would also end undeserving welfare. Individual and mutual responsiblity, he said, in detail: tax-code fairness, fair trade, energy independence, medical care, pension reform, bureacratic reform. The question is whether the ppl really understood that. While he got polite applause for those things, he got a raucous response for anti-Republican and warlike statements, and I have little doubt regarding the latter that he will expand the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan. He also erected several straw men, took credit for things neither party or govt did, and tried to paint himself as the really disinterested candidate. The last remains to be seen, too, because he ended on the worn idea of the American dream, which has rather meant in practice that the most selfish from other countries seek to come here, not the least. He seems, in fact, to be trying to reform the Democratic party as much as anything.

Democrats, historically, were never really "in touch" with common working ppl, but were always ppl whose hope was to rise above them. If their idea is that we are electing a tribal chief or some other sort of monarch, then I don't think anyone CAN do anything for them, indeed, it is rather a serious challenge to real democracy. Wanting to be president should certainly be a disqualification for it, and that's why it was one of the first things discussed in the constitutional convention, and which had agitated Madison, who found what he thought might be an answer in one of Hume's essays, and wrote of parties as factions. The founders wanted unified power, but they did not want any kind of tyranny. The fact is, though, that most American democrats love to patronize each other, and modern tyrants patronize. Ronald Reagan, LBJ, and George the Younger are perfect examples of this. Patronizing each other is what ppl do in market societies. It is the opposite of duty, and devotion to country. That is why John McCain has always been at odds with famous figures in BOTH parties. On the matter of experience, it will take a person who actually knows Washington to clean it up, just as it took an anti-communist to break the ice with China, and a southerner to pass civil rights legislation. Let me say, too, that harping on Obama's skin color IS prejudice whether negative OR positive.