RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "You didn't elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades."

President Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination at the Democratic National Convention. (photo: NYT)
President Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination at the Democratic National Convention. (photo: NYT)


Barack Obama: Let's Finish What We Started

By Ewen MacAskill, Guardian UK

07 September 12

 

 

President accepts Democrats' nomination for second term with frank speech acknowledging that challenges remain.

arack Obama has made his pitch for a second White House term, pleading in his keynote address to the Democratic convention for more time in spite of the slow economic recovery and warning of the dangers posed by a Mitt Romney presidency.

Employing sombre pragmatism in place of the soaring optimism of the 2008 campaign, he told 23,000 people in the arena in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the tens of millions watching at home: "I won't pretend the path I'm offering is quick or easy.

"You didn't elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades.

"But know this, America: Our problems can be solved. Our challenges can be met. The path we offer may be harder but it leads to a better place. And I'm asking you to choose that future."

Throughout the week Obama campaign officials had been briefing that he would lay out a "roadmap" for the next four years to secure economic recovery.

He did hold out the prospect of a program that would reverse US decline, hinting at embarking on an ambitious and bold Franklin Roosevelt-style New Deal if re-elected. But he failed to offer much in the way of detail, focusing instead on telling the activists in the hall and the millions watching at home that it was up to them to choose which future they wanted for the country.

Obama's formal acceptance of the party's nomination to face Romney for the White House on 6 November was greeted with deafening applause from delegates.

The speech had been moved from a 73,000-seater football stadium to the much smaller Time Warner Cable arena, leaving disappointed ticket-holders, mainly party volunteers, to line up for seats at a screening in the nearby convention centre. The thunderstorms that party officials had cited as the reason for the venue change failed to materialise.

The tone of Obama's message - delivered a few hours before the release of the latest monthly job figures - was subdued compared with the sense of euphoria he created at the Denver convention four years ago. He also struck a very different note from Bill Clinton the night before.

The more sober approach was deliberate, a recognition of the mood of disenchantment among some voters, tired of fine oratory and and more interested in his plans for a second term.

So Obama was careful to recognise his own shortcomings, at one point telling the crowd that one of the difference from 2008 was that he was "far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said: 'I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.'"

Over the course of the 47-minute speech there were occasional flashes of the old idealistic language. "If you turn away now - if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn't possible … well, change will not happen," he pleaded.

In a direct call to voters who backed him in 2008 he acknowledged that the challenges are harder this time around. "Our road is longer - but we travel it together. We don't turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up. We draw strength from our victories and we learn from our mistakes, but we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon."

He portrayed the election as the most important facing the US for generations, offering a clear choice between those who wanted a government actively engaged in trying to make life better, the Democratic view, and those who favoured small government, the Republicans.

"When all is said and done - when you pick up that ballot to vote - you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation. Over the next few years big decisions will be made in Washington, on jobs and the economy; taxes and deficits; energy and education; war and peace. Decisions that will have a huge impact on our lives and our children's lives for decades to come.

"On every issue the choice you face won't be just between two candidates or two parties. It will be a choice between two different paths for America."

Though the main focus of the speech was the economy, Obama delivered an extremely effective swipe at Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's inexperience over foreign policy.

"My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, but from all that we've seen and heard they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly," he said.

He cited Romney's criticism of British preparations for the Olympics. "You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can't visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally."

Drawing parallels between his goals and those of FDR, he said the kind of America he wanted to create would take more than a few years to achieve. "It will require common effort, shared responsibility and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one," he said.

Obama promised to create a million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016. The president also promised to double exports by the end of 2014 and cut net oil imports in half by 2020.

Romney, who is at his home in New Hampshire, told reporters he would not be watching the speech but his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, said: "Tonight President Obama laid out the choice in this election, making the case for more of the same policies that haven't worked for the past four years."

The reaction among Democrats was less ecstatic than the reception they accorded to Clinton or even Obama's wife, Michelle, on Tuesday night. James Carville, a Democratic strategist, described the speech as "muscular".

The final night of the convention had a Hollywood flavour with speeches by Scarlett Johansson and the Desperate Housewives start Eva Longoria.

There were also emotional moments, with the delegates rising to their feet to welcome to the platform Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman recovering after being shot in the head in an assassination attempt in Arizona last year.

One of the strongest speeches came from John Kerry, lambasting Romney for his lack of experience or knowledge of foreign policy.

A teary-eyed Joe Biden also accepted the nomination to stand again for the vice-presidency with a speech heavy on auto bailouts and the killing of Osama Bin Laden, designed to appeal to wavering white working class male voters who supported Obama last time.

The Democrats paraded Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida, as evidence that the Tea Party-infused Republican party had become so extreme that moderates such as Crist had been forced out.

See Also: Full text of President Obama's Acceptance Speech

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+31 # tswhiskers 2012-09-07 06:53
I watched Obama's speech and was glad that he didn't make any extreme promises that were unlikely to be kept. It was an honest and realistic speech. I think he knows now the political realities he faces if Reps. retain seats in Congress and knows his limitations better than he did in 2008. Change will come more slowly under Obama, but it will positively affect all Americans, not just the wealthy few, and I hope that our democratic institutions will not suffer as they undoubtedly would and already have, under Rep. leadership. I'm Obama/Biden all the way even at the price of a slower, more democratic recovery.
 
 
-9 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 08:12
"extreme promises." ?

How about a real "vision" and plan to get us there; one that would truly address the twin ongoing economic and environmental crises this country is still facing?

1 million manufacturing jobs and 100,000 new teachers (union public school or privatized non-union charter school teachers?)? While both are a good thing they hardly even make a dent in our employment/unem ployment problems.

And, while it was good to hear from him that climate change "isn't a hoax" there was nothing about how he wants the country to actually confront this either.

There was also nothing about the ongoing housing/foreclo sure crisis....how many more millions will be foreclosed on in the next four years absent real change in gov't policies and practices (much if not most of the foreclosures at this point are on gov't backed i.e., fannie or freddie mortgages)?

The country now has the highest poverty rate since the Great Depression with (by 1 measure) 50% of the country being in poverty or "near poverty". Is it too much to expect from our President (let alone candidates) to at least speak to this one?

I won't even get into questions about foreign policy or domestic civil liberties.

"honest and realistic"?

since there was virtually nothing in the speach about what his vision of change is and how he would get us there i found the speach to be neither.

"Inspiration" just isn't enough.
 
 
+3 # rockieball 2012-09-07 09:59
As was said by Jack Nicholson. "The truth you can't handle the truth." This applies mostly to the blind lemmings of the right, the tea party and the Republicans.
 
 
+17 # Barbara K 2012-09-07 07:11
I watched the entire convention. The President and Vice President gave extraordinary speeches. The President's speech was also awesome and clearly energized and connected to the people there. Many were in tears while some openly sobbed. He actually spoke about 50 minutes and the tape is 39 minutes. Hm?
Anyway, let's mobilize now and see that he gets a second term in spite of what the Tbaggers and thugs want. We need to keep going, he has us started in the right direction and it makes no sense to put the people back in charged that caused the problems in the first place. How nutty would that be? Great job, Mr. President, we cannot go backward now. DON't Vote Republican at any level, we need to clean out some states too.

DO VOTE: OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
 
 
-3 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 08:31
While Obama is the only choice given how frightening the prospect over a republican white house and congress would be; "he has us started in the right direction"? How so?

I would agree that his stance on Gay Marriage, repealing "don't ask don't tell", supporting a woman's right to choose, preventing insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions are all good things...on the twin economic and environmental crises we continue to face (not to mention foreign policy and domestic civil liberty issues) in what sense are we now moving in the right direction. Millions were foreclosed on (and millions more in the pipe line); we now have the highest poverty rate since the great depression; 1 million new manufacturing jobs in the face of 25 million unemployed or underemployed will barely make a dent in this.

On the environment, while i was glad to hear Obama say it "isn't a hoax" he continues to push "clean coal" (now there's an oxymoron) and natural gas (interesting how he didn't mention nuclear last night nor Fukashima).

To be clear, if i was in a "swing state" i would vote for Obama...being in NY i believe progressives need to "vote strategically" and try and build a real progressive wing that has some leverage over the dems as a whole and so i will vote "green" but even if i voted for him i would not pretend that his "vision" (which he does not even really explain) is indeed really moving us in "the right direction"
 
 
+15 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-07 09:21
DK,
I agree that we need to vote strategically. It amazes me how many people don't really understand how the Electoral College process works.

However, I think your criticism of Obama's speech is a bit unfair. You are looking for a list of details that normally is presented the State of The Union address. This was a campaign speech. It's the part of a job review where you get to tell your boss(es) why they should keep you on the job.
Here is the bottom line. "Willie & Paul, The RR Boys" will do the exact same bad shit that Obama is doing, and none of the good stuff. I cannot think of a single issue where The RR Boys are better. Can you? This is not the lesser of two evils, the choice is between a sinking ship and one that floats.
 
 
0 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:49
Brad,

thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's nice to know that there are still at least a few people on this board (and in the country as a whole) that aren't totally mindless zombies and either totally critical or totally uncritical of either party or who have completely lost (if they ever had them) all powers of critical thinking.

I hear ya and perhaps you are right in terms of expecting too much from a campaign speach. On the other hand, i don't think we got much more by way of specifics in any of Obama's speaches while in office (e.g., the State of the Union speaches).

Particularly after Clinton's speach (which, though i do not like Clinton was a very good speach) i think Obama missed a real opportunity to lay out a concrete vision and plan for how to get us there.

Doesn't mean i have any illusions about how difficult it would be to make this vision a reality (given the current state of both parties) but at least make the case for it. This has been my main complaint of Obama. At least make the case (and we know he can make it given his oratory skills) so that people at least that have that Arsenio hmmmmm moment and actually might think "hey, there is an alternative."

As i said, if i were in a swing state i would vote for Obama for sure but luckily i am not and so i can vote for a truly progressive alternative without risking a democratic loss in the state.
 
 
0 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-07 11:37
DK,

Thanks. I do identify myself as a Left Wing Progressive Liberal Libertarian. Even though I despise the false equivalencies so prevalent in the MSM, I don't agree with everything that spills out of the mouths of Liberals.

I too would love to hear a detailed plan, and while I also have many issues with the Clintons;, Bill was always great at producing a checklist of details. Obama works at a different level by setting goals. It often sounds fuzzy, but if the Republicans were capable of compromise and negotiation it may have produced incredible results. We will never know, because the deck was stacked from day one. However, I have hope for Obama, since he has been slow to accept the obvious, but I see a willingness to get stubborn as of late and along with that a desire to delineate a full blown agenda. At least his boat floats and there will still be hope for the future.
 
 
-20 # orwell, by george 2012-09-07 07:21
i feel morally and legally constrained from voting for a murdering war criminal.
 
 
+14 # bmiluski 2012-09-07 08:32
Quoting orwell, by george:
i feel morally and legally constrained from voting for a murdering war criminal.

Oh honey, that dog don't hunt.
 
 
+4 # rockieball 2012-09-07 10:01
But tell me did you vote for G.W. Bush? You just described him to a T.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:15
There have been a lot of war criminals of the U.S. variety. Some finally smarten up and confess, some are hopeless, ultranationlist basket cases. (Hope you're not one.) You can't deny that the Bushites, slime balls that they were/are, committed far more war crimes than the current Whitehouse occupant. Iraq still stands out like a festering wound. Although I opposed President Obama's contribution to a slimy, little "intervention" that occured in Libya; another case of "toppling that evil dictator," grossly contradicting U.S. prezs' support especially for Right-wing tyrants, past and present. Do you think "George," that the other George of junior qualifications for prez reflects more barbaric war policies than a "nonbirther?" (This conspiracy has been shot to hell.) I hope your username isn't reflecting some "badge of honor" of someone who's sarcasm is as Orwellian of the name and thus Orwell himself. That would be pathetic, recognizing the obvious attempt to play "victim." And for a Rightie, this just isn't beleivable, at least politically-spe aking. (If you are one.)
 
 
-16 # spartacusjones 2012-09-07 07:41
Finish what we started?
Yes, we're not QUITE Nazi Germany yet. There are one or two minor liberties that Obama has not completely destroyed.

I never imagined that any President could be even WORSE than Bush, but I have to give the devil his due.

I don't believe Obama would know the "truth" if it bit him on the behind.

sj
 
 
-13 # chirostv 2012-09-07 08:41
He will learn the truth in a couple of months!
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:23
You can't handle the truth. (Excuse the cliched response.)
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2012-09-07 11:48
And what, in your eyes is the truth? The top 1% getting a $4 trillion tax cut that will be paid for by you and your family? Ryan couldn't even get through a speech without out-and-out lying to the public. It's like he didn't care if he got caught.
 
 
+1 # James Smith 2012-09-08 02:31
Tell us, exactly what liberties has Obama destroyed? Yes, he has failed to do away with the "Patriot" Act that did destroy so many liberties. That was not passed on his watch but is the creation of the BUsh administration.

I think you need a nice dose of reality. It's the Rethugnicans who are the enemy of freedom and civil rights. They have always been and will always be. Wake up and face the truth.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:22
Nobody was worse than the junior warmonger for imperialism; not even Reagan. Iraq sure stands out with the obvious deception for an "Iraqi Freedom" operation that resembled more a botched surgical job than anything altruistic. Try comparing, spart. Obama's Libya bullshit vs. the Bushites' "Axis of Evil" debacle. Iraq: About 1 million of the local population dead. Libya: I do know the death toll was way less. Don't give the Devil his due, unless you're a blindly, glorifying "true American." Then you're due to meet the "Devil."
 
 
+1 # MidwestTom 2012-09-07 07:45
I am having a really hard time figuring out who would be best for the country long term. Neither candidate wants to cut the Military, and I feel that we must. Obama said that we were buying weapons that the military does not want (I agree), but then he promised to build our military stronger. There was no mention of sacrifice and I am a believer that even if we raise taxes to 60% on those making $1.0 million or more, we still need some big cuts. The speech was good, well delivered, but no mention of what we do about the deficit.
 
 
-6 # chirostv 2012-09-07 08:40
Or anything specific which was his complaint about Governor Romney.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:24
You mean former head parasite of Bain Capital? Romney sure had a monetary field day, didn't he?
 
 
-16 # skylinefirepest 2012-09-07 07:51
Six trillion dollars in under four years...if this incompetent turkey gets another four he WILL finish the job. All depends on what you, the voter, thinks his job is...to turn the country over to the unions, broke and without respect in the rest of the world, or...restored to it's former greatness. How's that hope and change crap working out for the 8.3 percent of non-working Americans?? How about the one in six that's now on food stamps?? I could go on but if you honestly look at this man's lack of positive record you'll got screaming to the polls to vote for Romney. He at least has no hatred for American business or job producers.
 
 
+4 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 08:48
Romney supported the republican plan to not extend unemployment benefits so what on earth makes you think he will help them now? Romney the "job producer" produced mostly low-wage jobs with little or no benefits (Staples e.g,) when he wasn't raping US corps he took over and outsourcing those jobs overseas. And, Romney the "job producing savior" of the Olympics "saved it" with $60+ million in government funds (hell, i could have saved it too with that much gov't funding...not saying that this was a bad thing but again at least be honest about it). As for the unions, union workers are now a tiny fraction of the labor force so "turn the country over to the unions?" At least be honest. When unions were closer to 30% of the labor force the average wage for american workers was significantly higher than it is today and you can track the downturn in wages against the downturn in union workers and see how they relate.

I'm no democrat and believe dems need to be critical and honest about their own party but that goes for your types as well.
 
 
+5 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-07 09:37
Skyline,

The unions have been been decimated, they have very little power even over their rank & file. Why are you so afraid that there is group that represents workers? People are on food stamps because of two reasons, first stagnating wages because unions are not an available option to most workers. Second, the public sector; the part that pays for teachers, police, highway maintenance, public utilities, etc. are being laid off across the country. We can afford them, but we rather the money goes to a safe in the Cayman Islands instead. Romney has actually destroyed American businesses, Obama has not. Romney has made millions on shifting the assets of businesses by paying off their executives, then diverting the assets to himself. All without putting his own fortune at risk.

The best way to help American business is to help American people. Provide training (teach them to fish!), assure them of health care and an even playing field no matter who your daddy is and the people will do well. By definition, if the people are doing well, then so aren't American businesses.
 
 
+1 # bmiluski 2012-09-07 11:56
That $6 trillion contains bush's wars that he convenietly forgot to put into his budget. It also contains the $ that has been paid out in Unemployment Compensation, for the folks that bush put on that line with his steller leadership, tax relief for small businesses, that he ignored because they didn't belong to his family etc.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:31
Ten Trillion dollars from the Bush regime, an unpredented record. That 6 trillion you mention was a definate fallout from this, i.e., something that's simply not going to go away overnight. If you're looking for Obama to perform financial "miracles," which I know you're not, then you better start using some pixie dust. That's probably the only way you understand the debt. And I know why you and others of the anti-Obama clique oppose your "worst nightmare." He's simply part of the biggest , current (loyal) opposition the Repubs have. Thus, the hurling of cheapshots without intelligent content.
 
 
+1 # lark3650 2012-09-07 08:00
I want to believe President Obama's words....but I believe in what Elizabeth Warren said..."the system is rigged." DEEDS NOT WORDS. There is no doubt that the speakers at the DNC were inspirational but "actions speak louder than words."
 
 
-10 # jtatu 2012-09-07 08:05
The Obama speech is so different from what he was telling us in 2008 that it raises a serious question. Was he intentionally lying in 2008 or did he just not know what he was talking about? In either case why should he be taken seriously now?
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:37
We sure as hell know we shouldn't take Repubs seriously, especially now: Their agenda is probably the worst they've had; A 19th century, economic outlook combined with a 12th century religous fanaticism, although more sophisticated compared to their 12th century, "religious relatives." Obama, as is the case with other Dems, caved in. His degree of progressive promises genrally fell by the wayside because of his "art of compromise," i.e., political surrender. THAT produces serious questions, but not a blind embrace of Repub, political stupidity.
 
 
-12 # jlstiles 2012-09-07 08:17
We have made no significant progress and if anything, have regressed under Obama. Because he has rubber-stamped Bush torture with no attempt at prosecution of rampant torture or his gutting of the constitution, torture has become the law. He still practices rendition, secret detention and extra judicial assassination even of American citizens, which is worse than Bush, and his NDA is even more severe. In fact, he remains silent about Bradley Manning who has been held without trial for what will be 2 years, much of it in torturous conditions, for nothing other than standing for what is right.

Obama has further legitimized war and dumped even more $ into the military than the astronomical amount already placed there. Obama is worse than Bush on Monsanto and huge agribusiness being allowed to flood our markets with pesticides and untested products. He exports this poison through Free trade agreements that sell out our workers and enslave foreign workers.

Romney actually already employed Obama's corporate healthcare plan and it failed. It was written by and helps insurance companies stay in our pockets. The American people overall will get no better care. Obama, despite his talk about standing up to big oil, has permitted them to drill in the arctic and let BP completely off the hook.

On gay rights and abortion, Obama is preferrable, but these only serve to fool us into thinking there is a difference between the two parties.
 
 
-14 # RightForAReason 2012-09-07 08:52
Manning is a traitor. One of three Federal Death Penalty crimes, if Holder ever prosecuted real crimes.
 
 
+7 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:33
Quoting RightForAReason:
Manning is a traitor. One of three Federal Death Penalty crimes, if Holder ever prosecuted real crimes.


So were the "founding fathers" (given that they were rebelling against "their country" and "their king).

Is not "blowing the whistle" on illegal government activities (particularly war crimes) one of if not the most patriotic acts?
 
 
+1 # rockieball 2012-09-07 10:46
Since when is refusing orders or telling others of orders that violate laws even by a military person make him a traitor. Think what Nixon would have made of it if he was President and Watergate happened today and Woodword and Beirnstein disclosed what he did. Or the Pentagon Papers. German soldiers were sentenced to death or given jail time just for saying "They were just obeying orders." It was then said by the judges that just obeying orders is no excuse for committing inhumane acts. Manning saw wrong refused to do it and revealed it to the world. He is not a traitor he is a hero who is standing up and taking wrongful punishment for revealing inhumane acts committed by our military leaders.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:47
So I assume you support pissing on corpses and posing with body parts, among other acts of sadism. Manning is one of those U.S. soldiers that have far more balls than cowardly "kicking the asses" of the common "other" who don't have political/econo mic power. Mr. Wrong, for no reason, you are cowardly in even calling Manning a traitor. You don't see the difference between socially responsible patriotism and its' irresponsible, socially depraved counterpart: Blind imperialism/ult rantionalism. Live up to your alleged username grouchy.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:06
JL, i agree with much of your critique but to conclude therefore that there is no diffeence between the two parties is no better than the rethugs claiming that Obama is a socialist or the dems trying to paint him as a real progressive reformer.

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between. i would agree that there is no substantive difference between the two parties. but, this has always been so. dems who are now somehow mytologizing the past and longing for the good ol' days of yesteryear have no real understanding of history. The dems have always represented 'wall street' or the ruling class or however you want to put it. This goes as much for FDR as it does for Clinton or Obama.

The real difference today (say compared to the 1930 under Roosevelt) is that there is no mass movement with the power to make the dems to what we want (at least somewhat as they did under FDR...which only happened precisely because there was a mass, radical, movement).

so, before simply dismissing both parties as being totally the same think about the millions of unemployed that would have lost their benefits had the repubs had their way and not extended unemployment benefits or the half of the country (women) that would lose health care insurance coverage for reproductive health issues/problems . These differences may be quantitative and not qualitative but in the real world this still matters to millions of real people.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:38
Are you actually capible of directly understanding reality? So far, you've disappointed me. I'll try not to have hope.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:40
To quote: "On gay rights and abortion, Obama is preferrable, but these only serve to fool us into thinking there is a difference between the two parties." THAT IS an effective conclusion. I retrack some of my intitial reply.
 
 
-8 # Zagreus 2012-09-07 08:29
I can't believe folks bought the smoke and mirrors AGAIN...

He said it four years ago, and then led us down the garden path, continuing the Bush legacy of War and of stripping Civil Liberties from citizens.

The Democrats are really no different from the Republicans anymore. They both serve Wall Street and the War machine.

The rights and well-being of the working people are always placed second to serving the rich.

And Obama has rubber-stamped and continued the policies of the Bush administration in stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights, while continuing to overspend on War and make our foreign policy contingent upon the orders of Israel.

I will be voting Third Party from now on.

After all, that is how America elected Lincoln.
 
 
+13 # TrueAmericanPatriot 2012-09-07 08:33
Excellent address; it was direct, realistic, personally accountable, and laid out the plan of action and its foundation for the next for years. The goals he stated are very attainable and will get America's economic engine roaring again. We really do need to remind our fellow-voters to FLUSH OUT those rethugs, blue-dogs, and teabagger-trash OUT OF CONGRESS so we can REALLY get things done!!!! OBAMA 2012!!!!
 
 
0 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:09
Quoting TrueAmericanPatriot:
Excellent address; it was direct, realistic, personally accountable, and laid out the plan of action and its foundation for the next for years. The goals he stated are very attainable and will get America's economic engine roaring again. We really do need to remind our fellow-voters to FLUSH OUT those rethugs, blue-dogs, and teabagger-trash OUT OF CONGRESS so we can REALLY get things done!!!! OBAMA 2012!!!!


Please explain "the plan of action". i would love to hear it (seriously). i was hoping for it last night but sadly i don't think we got it....1 million new manufacturing jobs in the face of at least 25 million unemployed and underemployed. no discussion of how he or what this country needs to do to address climate change. nothing on the next wave (millions) of foreclosures that continue unabated (and which are now largely being done by the gov't itself i.e., fannie and freddie mortgages). I hate the rethugs to and Obama is the only choice but let's at least be honest and have a serious critique.
 
 
+2 # wwway 2012-09-07 12:25
Clinton laid that out. Obama has had a plan of action but it's been rejected by congress. Americans made a huge mistake when they lost their nerve and voted against progress in 2010.
Regardless, are you listening? Obama has explained his plan many times and described how congress is obstructing any proposal unless it contains tax breaks for the rich and relaxed envornmental and work place safety regulations.
 
 
+5 # Antemedius 2012-09-07 09:15
Of course.

In 2010, American voters foolishly aided and abetted the Republicans by giving them control of Congress.
[snip]
Returning the Democratic Party to the glory days of house and senate control that it had until Obama and the party were unable to convince enough people that their batsh*t crazy drive for bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans was the only way to go, is the only way to go. There is no other reasonable way to go.


MORE:
Keep On Rockin' In The Free World: Give Obama and the Dems Some Credit For A Change
http://antemedius.com/content/keep-rockin-free-world-give-obama-and-dems-some-credit-change

Sigh...
 
 
-8 # chirostv 2012-09-07 08:39
Obama made the extreme promises in 2008 when he was quoted as saying that if he couldn't get this done in one term that he should not be re-elected. The follow up for me is that if he did not know things were as bad as they really were (how could he not know?) why trust him now to tell us the truth which he has steadfastly avoided?
 
 
+2 # lollie 2012-09-07 10:26
Do you trust the alternative?
 
 
+5 # grouchy 2012-09-07 08:50
One item left out in this argument is the fact that it took a long time to dig the financial hole within which we now dwell and thus it's a wee bit unfair of some folk to bitch about how we haven't filled in that hole as of yet after just a few years! So, just what is a REASONABLE rate of correction to be expected in this case--and qualify that answer with recognition that some folk have an invested interest in slowing the correction down as much as possible! "It's the election stupid!"
 
 
-1 # Antemedius 2012-09-07 09:36
The banks, the economy, America, and you, would be fine if rather than bailing out Wall Street over the subprime mortgage mess they created for themselves and everyone else, the administration and the fed had instead paid off every mortgage in the country - subprime or not - for less money (only about 12 trillion) than the 18-20 trillion they gave wall street as a reward for pillaging the economy.

This could even have been done with tax credits thus avoiding any outlay of money from the fed.

It would have restored the value behind the CDO mortgage backed securities that wall street got themselves into so much trouble with, and thus saved Wall Street while tremendously boosting the consumer driven economy, as the money would have gone directly to the mortgage holding banks while at the same time effectively doubling the amount of bailout money by lifting a enormous debt weight from all those homeowners who would then have had an equivalent amount of disposable funds to spend any way they chose.



...

Obama campaigned for the restoration of Glass-Steagall, and then put in place all the same people who'd destroyed it. He'd been made an insider.
...
It was the same pattern Obama followed in every department: Where he didn't leave Bush's people in charge he brought back Clinton's. Anything to be an insider.

http://antemedius.com/content/reminder-wall-streets-mercenaries-ride-donkeys
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 10:18
Great to see someone actually talk about concrete alternatives... i agree 100% about the foreclosures... was truly remarkable that Obama didn't say a word about the ongoing housing/foreclo sure crisis. Perhaps, given that so many of the foreclosures now are actually being perpetrated by the federal government (via fannie and freddie) it was not something he wanted to get into....sad, at best.

To many on this board act like there is no alternative and nothing that Obama can or could do other than what he is doing. This kind of thinking is self-defeating and self-destructiv e at best and just aids the ongoing shift of the democratic party as a whole further and further to the right (such that someone like Clinton is now the "new normal" "centrist".

We've got (potentially) still millions of additional foreclosures coming down the pike and so we need to keep raising the alternatives so your comment here is right on target.
 
 
+1 # Antemedius 2012-09-07 12:29
It's difficult I think for people to accept that Obama, Romney, The Democratic Party, and the Republican party, do not represent them or the average American.

They represent the moneyed classes, the 1%.

And they are all complicit in the biggest transfer of wealth and property in history taking place right now from the average man or women to the top of the pyramid.

Capitalism has run it's course. The economy globally is a resource to be pillaged now. We are not in a recession or a depression, but instead are collapsing utterly both economically and environmentally.

The top of the pyramid knows this and is out to protect and enrich themselves, and the members of both major partys are complicit, hoping their masters will save them along with themselves while everything collapses.

The two party system is a circus show put on to con the peasants into feeling that they are participating, while they are being sheared.

'Advanced' Civilization: The Long Party is Over
http://antemedius.com/content/advanced-civilization-long-party-over
 
 
0 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 09:38
It was "REASONABLE" for us to expect that at least Obama would have stopped the federal government's practice (through Fannie and Freddie) of foreclosing on homeowners. It was "REASONABLE" to expect the President to say that if the private sector would not hire that the government must be the employer of last resort and use the trillions given to the banks to put people back to work in union jobs to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure (not to mention building the neeeded high speed rail system we need or retrofitting every public building to make them energy efficient).

I have no illusions as to the republican opposition but it is "REASONABLE" to expect a democratic president to have a real vision and plan for how to deal with the twin ongoing economic and environmental crises.

Or to put it another way....

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
Proverbs 29:18

“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at…” Oscar Wilde

If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else
Yogi Berra
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-09-07 08:55
I'm no democrat but to all those saying there is NO difference at all...tell that to those whose unemployment benefits would have run out had the republicans had there way...NO difference..per haps not to you but how 'bout the millions who lost their job and who need the benefits to survive (or at least starve more slowly)? No difference? Tell that to the half of the country (women) who would lose medical coverage for reproductive health care.

It is one thing to be thoroughly critical of Obama (as i have been from day 1) but that does not mean we have to lapse into meaningless and totally distorted hyperbole in saying there is no difference at all. there may be no qualitiative difference between the two parties (i would agree on this one) but there is and has always been a quantitative difference that in the real world impacts millions, if not tens of millions of real people every day.

To say there is no difference at all is as callous as Romney telling people to simply borrow money from their parents to start a business as if this is any solution to the country's seious economic problems.
 
 
-1 # Antemedius 2012-09-07 09:00
"finish what we started"?

Oh boy. That's bipartisanship taken to fanatical extremes. Over the edge.

Time to renew the passport.

..........

About 7,910,000 results
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=obama+ready+to+compromise&oq=obama+ready+to+compromise&gs_l=hp.3...1072.19549.0.20694.29.14.0.0.0.0.2866.3671.6-1j9-1.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.TQ-y0OrAdLI
 
 
-8 # seeuingoa 2012-09-07 09:11
V O T E F O R O B A M A


You are right mister President, You
haven´t finished what you started.
So we will vote for you so we can
have four more years with

indefinite detention
violation of 1st Amendment
drones
kill list
taxcut for the rich
tar sand pipeline
arctic drilling


what a pity that Clinton couldn´t
dismantle these issues in his speech
and you not either in yours !
 
 
0 # Antemedius 2012-09-07 09:45
There is no equivalence between him and Romney, or between him and any republican.

Not even close.

He's far, far and away better than any republican could ever be.

No republican could ever hope to have put over all the con jobs on people that Obama has managed to put over on them and still have them cheering and believing they'd supported something even remotely progressive or good for them.

But no one likes to admit they were taken to the cleaners by a skilled con artist, so they'll hand over their money again, and they'll vote for him again.

Maybe someday they'll realize that the two party con job is the biggest lie there is.

Maybe... but not likely.
 
 
0 # thoreauvianflake@yahoo.com 2012-09-07 09:45
dkonstruction says: "we now have the highest poverty rate since the great depression..."
Yep,and Romney and the republicans keep telling us that Obama has done nothing to spruce up the economy and on and on with all of the same old.What we dont hear much is that the economy is the way it,and there's more poor americans,becau se of 8 years of the terrorist numero uno George W. Bush.Obama is just another corporate puppet and i think it's sad that we have only two choices....both puppets.Truly i believe things will get worse if Romney wins,but Obama is not the answer to our woes...he is part of the problem.Until we get money out of the campaigns there's no hope for this once great country.I too will be voting green in NY.
 
 
-1 # JackB 2012-09-07 09:50
Barry came to the table with a blank resume & proceeded to prove that with the right BS one can sell a pig in a poke.

Now, after almost four years of proving his blank resume was an accurate description of his qualifications & after running out of ways to blame Bush & anyone or anything else for his incompetence he has gone back to square one. Dazzle them with BS.

All the things he was going to fix in his first term that didn't get fixed were Bush's fault of course but, still in all, there are the non-believers who will say that it makes no difference - he was the President & he said he would fix them & he didn't. No problem. They bought in once. They'll do it again. This time Barry wants us to turn to page 47 in the hymnal - "I may be divine but I need more time".

Seems the problem isn't just Bush - it goes back for decades. Of course that means that not only the Republicans but also the Democrats were screw-ups & Divine Barry's task is even greater than he had realized.

The faithful acolytes in the Divine Barry Adoration Society will believe.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:54
Still banging your head against the anti-Obama wall? To quote: "Seems the problem isn't just Bush - it goes back for decades. Of course that means that not only the Republicans but also the Democrats were screw-ups..." Yes, I agree, only that the Repubs, especially since the 1890s, have been foreign policy Huns compared to the sometime "politically spineless." In fact, the "screwups" are rooted in the U.S. founders' support for empire, of an extreme, montetary nature, along with the traditional racism, although Franklin and certain other individuals were anti-slavery. See quotes from Washington, Jefferson, even Franklin.
 
 
-1 # popeye47 2012-09-07 19:43
The Republicans never planned from the beginning to give Obama 4 years to fix our problems.

There were quite a few that announced just within a month after he became president that his methods were failing. Now folks this is within a few days to a few months after he was on the job.

Yes they were giving him 4 years. Yes there is a Easter bunny,too.
 
 
0 # David Starr 2012-09-09 11:59
They really were/are, and simply, the party of no. AND it's not out of sincerity. They love profits over peoples. The Dems are fond of that as well, but not as fanatically in comparison. Still, both "parties" overall are not a viable, progressive, etc. alternative.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-09-08 12:05
Barack Obama: "Let's Finish What We Started." Finish what we started? How about starting what should have been started in the first place? Then, finish, i.e., finish off the Repubs?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN