And the 'Brits weigh in on Sarah...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080904/D93079DG4.html

Hahaha... Now revised to over 40 million. That's about 1/3 of all the people expected to vote in this election. And more than watched Obama. (Look for the Obama camp to issue corrected number in the very near future)

FAIL.

You have to take into account Obama's PBS' audience, which is larger than Palin's, at around 4 million, which would put Obama at 42.4 million. Palin would be at 41.1 million.

Before crying victory, wait several days until the dust settles.

Awesome... Pretty much what I said... But still awesome. You're celebrating the fact that the Dem candidate for president may have just edged out the Republican VP for eyeballs.
Judging by the $10 million record-breaking one-day haul for Obama after Palin's speech, it's obvious a lot of those eyeballs didn't drink the party prune juice.

Apparently it scared the living shit out of the Dems...

The only real relevance of the VP candidate IMO in an election is when they're *so bad* that it's a huge risk for them to become president. If they're really really good, it's a minor bump because they're unlikely to get into the presidency, and not much reason to decide your vote compared to the presidential candidate. But a VP candidate bad enough can be a reason to vote against a ticket.

Contacts on that happening by finding such a terrible 'Cheney level of bad' VP.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
[Awesome... Pretty much what I said... But still awesome. You're celebrating the fact that the Dem candidate for president may have just edged out the Republican VP for eyeballs.

Yes, the brand new nominee few have heard of got attention for her first (Bush speechwriter-writen) speech, while Obama has had massive coverage for a year.

Now compare the level of *support* between Obama's first-since-JFK use of a stadium completely packed with 84,000 *supporters* versus the GOP's 'TV curiosity' audience.

You think Palin could have had people going to the lengths they did to see Obama, to see her speech in person?

My point is... 1/3 of the electorate got to see her. The response to her has been overwhelmingly positive. She went from a nobody to a rock star in one night.

She is changing people's votes. And not to Obama. The CBS poll is a pre-curser. The next few days should be interesting.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080904/D93079DG4.html

Hahaha... Now revised to over 40 million. That's about 1/3 of all the people expected to vote in this election. And more than watched Obama. (Look for the Obama camp to issue corrected number in the very near future)

FAIL.

You have to take into account Obama's PBS' audience, which is larger than Palin's, at around 4 million, which would put Obama at 42.4 million. Palin would be at 41.1 million.

Before crying victory, wait several days until the dust settles.

Awesome... Pretty much what I said... But still awesome. You're celebrating the fact that the Dem candidate for president may have just edged out the Republican VP for eyeballs.
Judging by the $10 million record-breaking one-day haul for Obama after Palin's speech, it's obvious a lot of those eyeballs didn't drink the party prune juice.

Apparently it scared the living shit out of the Dems...

The only real relevance of the VP candidate IMO in an election is when they're *so bad* that it's a huge risk for them to become president. If they're really really good, it's a minor bump because they're unlikely to get into the presidency, and not much reason to decide your vote compared to the presidential candidate. But a VP candidate bad enough can be a reason to vote against a ticket.

Contacts on that happening by finding such a terrible 'Cheney level of bad' VP.

Nobody is throwing money at Barak because they think she is a heartbeat away from the presidency if McCain wins. You're kidding yourself with that talk. They are throwing money at Barak because they realized last night that she might be the difference maker in this election. And by difference maker I mean Obama campaign sinker.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Nobody is throwing money at Barak because they think she is a heartbeat away from the presidency if McCain wins. You're kidding yourself with that talk. They are throwing money at Barak because they realized last night that she might be the difference maker in this election. And by difference maker I mean Obama campaign sinker.

Do you have any evidence for the motives of democratic donoirs in the last 24 hours?

As a democrat, I know that'd be my motivation, that the McCain ticket just went from 'terrible' to 'dangerous'.

But I know you would like to make up the reasons to suit your interests by claiming how it's all about how good she did.

Of course, I think anyone reacting that much over reading a speech written for her is absurd. I can understand people supporting her for her views, but not for the speech.

I think the whole 'anonymous candidate completely owned by the campaign marketing team' who doesn't talk to the press but only reads scripted things is bad for democracy.

Pretty much anyone can be puffed up by the advertising people that way. Rememberhow different Bush was as a candidate from his actual pesidential policies.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Nobody is throwing money at Barak because they think she is a heartbeat away from the presidency if McCain wins. You're kidding yourself with that talk. They are throwing money at Barak because they realized last night that she might be the difference maker in this election. And by difference maker I mean Obama campaign sinker.

Do you have any evidence for the motives of democratic donoirs in the last 24 hours?

As a democrat, I know that'd be my motivation, that the McCain ticket just went from 'terrible' to 'dangerous'.

But I know you would like to make up the reasons to suit your interests by claiming how it's all about how good she did.

Of course, I think anyone reacting that much over reading a speech written for her is absurd. I can understand people supporting her for her views, but not for the speech.

I think the whole 'anonymous candidate completely owned by the campaign marketing team' who doesn't talk to the press but only reads scripted things is bad for democracy.

Pretty much anyone can be puffed up by the advertising people that way. Rememberhow different Bush was as a candidate from his actual pesidential policies.

My reasons aren't any less made up than yours...

And if it makes you feel better to think that she delivered a canned speech that was completely devoid of her personality and all about marketing... fine.

I'll say this... the opening was canned. McCain this and McCain that... the end was canned too.

But the middle? The smirks and the sarcasm. The biting sense of humor. The jabs at Obama. That was all her. Scully may have polished it a bit but I've seen her in action. I've watched her in debates. I've seen her without a telepromptor. She's that good with or without a script. I voted for her for governor. She's really like that. Nobody writes speeches like that.

Right now they are riding the afterglow because, let's face it, it's all they have right now. But after this weekend she'll be out there with no script, no telepromptor... facing real questions from reporters. Be careful what you ask for. ;)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Nobody is throwing money at Barak because they think she is a heartbeat away from the presidency if McCain wins. You're kidding yourself with that talk. They are throwing money at Barak because they realized last night that she might be the difference maker in this election. And by difference maker I mean Obama campaign sinker.

Do you have any evidence for the motives of democratic donoirs in the last 24 hours?

As a democrat, I know that'd be my motivation, that the McCain ticket just went from 'terrible' to 'dangerous'.

But I know you would like to make up the reasons to suit your interests by claiming how it's all about how good she did.

Of course, I think anyone reacting that much over reading a speech written for her is absurd. I can understand people supporting her for her views, but not for the speech.

I think the whole 'anonymous candidate completely owned by the campaign marketing team' who doesn't talk to the press but only reads scripted things is bad for democracy.

Pretty much anyone can be puffed up by the advertising people that way. Rememberhow different Bush was as a candidate from his actual pesidential policies.

My reasons aren't any less made up than yours...

So, you just made them up. I didn't claim to speak for all the democrats, like you did, I spoke for my own view, which I can speak for. I admit speculation; you wrote as 'fact'.

And if it makes you feel better to think that she delivered a canned speech that was completely devoid of her personality and all about marketing... fine.

I'll say this... the opening was canned. McCain this and McCain that... the end was canned too.

But the middle? The smirks and the sarcasm. The biting sense of humor. The jabs at Obama. That was all her. Scully may have polished it a bit but I've seen her in action. I've watched her in debates. I've seen her without a telepromptor. She's that good with or without a script. I voted for her for governor. She's really like that. Nobody writes speeches like that.

Right now they are riding the afterglow because, let's face it, it's all they have right now. But after this weekend she'll be out there with no script, no telepromptor... facing real questions from reporters. Be careful what you ask for. ;)

Of *course* the speech was 'about her', captured some of her style, that's what speechwriters do, they try to help politicians say things in their style, better.

There are differences among politicians, though. Some, like JFK, either write a lot of their own material or otherwise contribute a lot - the good speech is a reflection of their ability.

Others are helped a lot by the speechwriter; almost any candidate can look decent with basic presentation and a decent speechwriter, on first impression.

I'm not objecting to her making a good impression later, if she does. If she becomes America's darling, fine, that's democracy.

It's the corruption of the system, the bypassing of democracy, when candidates' weaknesses are hidden, so that big money marketing can dominate, I object to.

She did not give any interviews but one fluff piece between her nomination by McCain and the big speech. There's a report they'll limit her press access until the election. There was a report that McCain has cut off the press from direct access. These are all things I don't care for that prevent the public from getting more, and more accurate, info. I'm fine with a balance - the convention speeches are going to be closely controlled much of the time. But I want other info to get out too, that serves democracy instead of the campaign.

Hopefully you can understand that while I"m strongly opposed to her on policy grounds, my opinions also include pro-democracy views regardless of who it helps, because as strong as my views are on who the better candidate is for the nation, I think that democracy's protection is even more important. And yes, the big money advertising approach is a threat to democracy working well. Democracy rests on an 'informed populace', and advertising is designed to persuade, not inform.

It seems we agree on the need for her to not be smothered by the campaign, for better or worse.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Sarah aka the Barracuda Palin is very much a wild card. A relatively unknown quantity the GOP thought they could script into a total GOP asset.

However, even before the GOP could introduce her to the public, the bloggers, using rumor, and half guesses, and some hard facts, were far ahead of everyone. As a result, Sarah Palin cannot quite wear the script
the GOP wanted. But even if the bloggers won round one, its time to say the GOP scriptwriters won round two.

And now we must all realize there will be more rounds to this fight if we in any way accept a boxing analogy. And maybe we should talk about the game plans for rounds three.

A. From the GOP side, Palin is like the Battle ship Bismark, something to scrip and sally out as a commerce raiders, bringing democratic distress wherever she goes. But to nurse the Palin bruises, they will limit her initial appears, while a quick study Palin gets up to speed addressing her national inexperience.

B. From the democratic standpoint, she is somewhat third rail family untouchable, but they hope to exploit her National policy ignorance and her hard facts public record which is fair game. And will probably use her own speech lines from the RNC to paint the alternative spin, something she left herself wide open on.

C. From the blogger and press perspective, Palin is a ticket to fame and many scoops in the making. The bloggers have had their go at her, rumor only gets one so far, and that damage is not yet done would be my guess. But press round two is likely to be scored by the more responsible elements of the press, who patiently will string together a set of unimpeachable facts now hidden. Those folks work more slowly, but I would expect they will weigh in long before the remaining 60 days are done. Of course, all will be going after McCain, Obama, and Biden as well, but Sarah Palin is by far the more tempting target.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
What we saw yesterday was not Sarah Palin, what we saw was Sarah Palin's speechwriters.

You are such a hack its almost unbelievable. I've never seen you ONCE say that about Obama.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,682
40,038
136
You are such a hack its almost unbelievable. I've never seen you ONCE say that about Obama.

Probably because Obama himself has the academic background which invalidates the need for a lot of speech writing assistance. Seriously, what a great way to admit you've just never taken the time to listen to the man! Did Palin attend Columbia? Did she get selected in just one year to a be Harvard Law Review editor due to her grades and writing ability?

Therein lies your answer, but don't let that stop you from getting bent out of shape over your own delusions of parity.



A woman who got her 1st passport in 2006 is going to be VP of the United States of America........I don't think so. McCain just lost his entire foreign policy debate right there. Biden will eat her alive.


Pretty much what I thought as well, but then I have to remind myself that a visceral devouring in real time doesn't have the same effect on those who have imbibed the GOP KoolAid. A huge chunk of that crowd still thinks Bush did fine in the 2004 debates, and were even proud of it - despite poor W getting slapped around like a confused, lost 6 year old, sometimes looking like he was pissing himself.

It's not often a female gets a veep nod, so of course it's going to produce an decent sized audience. Big deal, it's still style over substance, let's see how good she looks when she's made a fool of on prime time.



 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
From the democratic standpoint, she is somewhat third rail family untouchable, but they hope to exploit her National policy ignorance and her hard facts public record which is fair game.

The problem is, she is FAR more experienced than Obama, as she was mayor and then Governor.

Obama, being rather new, black, having one side of the family that is not American and a name that can be easily mistaken for the names of two of America's most dangerous enemies (Saddam HUSSEIN, OSAMA Bin Laden), is certainly not off the hook.

To this, add the fact that GOP is FAR more aggressive than the DP.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: kage69
You are such a hack its almost unbelievable. I've never seen you ONCE say that about Obama.

Probably because Obama himself has the academic background which invalidates the need for a lot of speech writing assistance. Seriously, what a great way to admit you've just never taken the time to listen to the man! Did Palin attend Columbia? Did she get selected in just one year to a be Harvard Law Review editor due to her grades and writing ability?

Therein lies your answer, but don't let that stop you from getting bent out of shape over your own delusions of parity.

Are you kidding me? Do you have proof Obama writes more of his own speeches than Palin?

Academic background has nothing to do with it. I've listened the the man plenty of times but am smart enough to look at his record, rather than his promises.

But of course, you're obviously missing the whole point of choosing Palin as a running mate in the first place.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you kidding me? Do you have proof Obama writes more of his own speeches than Palin?

ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

How Obama Writes His Speeches

By JAY NEWTON-SMALL / DENVER
Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008

Barack Obama is usually the candidate who begs his staff to let him take one more question at every event, but this week he hasn't been a man to linger. Even though his public schedule was relatively light, behind the scenes he was racing his own internal clock to finish what is the most important speech of his career.

Four years ago Obama spent months writing the convention speech that would catapult him onto the national stage. Even though he was busy with his day job in the Illinois State Senate and was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama would find time to scribble thoughts, often sneaking off the State Senate floor to the men's room to jot down ideas, or writing in the car as he campaigned across southern Illinois. It took him months to gather all those fleeting ideas and craft his acclaimed keynote speech.
.
.
Obama takes an unusually hands-on approach to his speech writing, more so than most politicians. His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads. He then logs these thoughts into his laptop, editing as he goes along. This is how he wrote both of his two best selling books?Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope?staying up after Michelle and his two young daughters had long gone to bed, reveling in the late night quiet. For this speech Obama removed himself from the distractions at home and spent many nights in a room in the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago. These late-night sessions produced long, meandering texts that were then circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau?a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith. "When you're working with Senator Obama the main player on a speech is Senator Obama," Axelrod said. "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would."
.
.

Hell! Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, a group of 80 student editors who publish a regular journal of legal writings. That only happens to someone who is a highly skilled writer.

I'll toss it back to you. Dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can prove he doesn't write most of his own speeches. Given his current schedule, I'm sure he has assitance with some of his current speeches, but I'm just as sure he has the final editorial say in what he presents in public.

While you're at it, dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can find those kinds of credentials and a history of writing for Palin, or even McShame. Neither of them is anywhere near as smart as Obama, let alone as eloquent based on their own writing.
 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you kidding me? Do you have proof Obama writes more of his own speeches than Palin?

ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

How Obama Writes His Speeches

By JAY NEWTON-SMALL / DENVER
Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008

Barack Obama is usually the candidate who begs his staff to let him take one more question at every event, but this week he hasn't been a man to linger. Even though his public schedule was relatively light, behind the scenes he was racing his own internal clock to finish what is the most important speech of his career.

Four years ago Obama spent months writing the convention speech that would catapult him onto the national stage. Even though he was busy with his day job in the Illinois State Senate and was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama would find time to scribble thoughts, often sneaking off the State Senate floor to the men's room to jot down ideas, or writing in the car as he campaigned across southern Illinois. It took him months to gather all those fleeting ideas and craft his acclaimed keynote speech.
.
.
Obama takes an unusually hands-on approach to his speech writing, more so than most politicians. His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads. He then logs these thoughts into his laptop, editing as he goes along. This is how he wrote both of his two best selling books?Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope?staying up after Michelle and his two young daughters had long gone to bed, reveling in the late night quiet. For this speech Obama removed himself from the distractions at home and spent many nights in a room in the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago. These late-night sessions produced long, meandering texts that were then circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau?a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith. "When you're working with Senator Obama the main player on a speech is Senator Obama," Axelrod said. "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would."
.
.

Hell! Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, a group of 80 student editors who publish a regular journal of legal writings. That only happens to someone who is a highly skilled writer.

I'll toss it back to you. Dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can prove he doesn't write most of his own speeches. Given his current schedule, I'm sure he has assitance with some of his current speeches, but I'm just as sure he has the final editorial say in what he presents in public.

While you're at it, dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can find those kinds of credentials and a history of writing for Palin, or even McShame. Neither of them is anywhere near as smart as Obama, let alone as eloquent based on their own writing.

Eloquence or smarts ain't gonna win this election for Obama. America does not need an elitist from Harvard and Columbia (aka Elitist League) that is out of touch with the people. They want someone with street smarts, someone that understand what Americans are going through, someone that is coming from Middle America. Out of the four top dogs, the only one that truly corresponds to this is Sarah Palin and that is why McCain will win the election come November.

Obama looks pretty good on paper but the majority of Americans are not impressed by that. I mean, didn't Bush graduate from Yale? Did you see how well that turned out?

A good school looks good on paper but it does not teach you everything.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Obama looks pretty good on paper but the majority of Americans are not impressed by that. I mean, didn't Bush graduate from Yale? Did you see how well that turned out?

This is a fair criticsm. Although I believe that Obama is smarter than Palin, you can't determine this by academic pedigree. George Bush is the perfect example of why this is so. However, I will say in Obama's defense that law school is generally more meritocratic than other areas of study (if I recall even privileged John Kerry was only able to get into Boston College Law). Additionally, Law Review is generally reserved for the top students in the school. That means that he did well in law school. Now the big question is whether Obama had affirmative action. I heard that he didn't state he was black on his applications but I do not know if this is true.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you kidding me? Do you have proof Obama writes more of his own speeches than Palin?

ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

How Obama Writes His Speeches

By JAY NEWTON-SMALL / DENVER
Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008

Barack Obama is usually the candidate who begs his staff to let him take one more question at every event, but this week he hasn't been a man to linger. Even though his public schedule was relatively light, behind the scenes he was racing his own internal clock to finish what is the most important speech of his career.

Four years ago Obama spent months writing the convention speech that would catapult him onto the national stage. Even though he was busy with his day job in the Illinois State Senate and was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama would find time to scribble thoughts, often sneaking off the State Senate floor to the men's room to jot down ideas, or writing in the car as he campaigned across southern Illinois. It took him months to gather all those fleeting ideas and craft his acclaimed keynote speech.
.
.
Obama takes an unusually hands-on approach to his speech writing, more so than most politicians. His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads. He then logs these thoughts into his laptop, editing as he goes along. This is how he wrote both of his two best selling books?Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope?staying up after Michelle and his two young daughters had long gone to bed, reveling in the late night quiet. For this speech Obama removed himself from the distractions at home and spent many nights in a room in the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago. These late-night sessions produced long, meandering texts that were then circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau?a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith. "When you're working with Senator Obama the main player on a speech is Senator Obama," Axelrod said. "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would."
.
.

Hell! Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, a group of 80 student editors who publish a regular journal of legal writings. That only happens to someone who is a highly skilled writer.

I'll toss it back to you. Dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can prove he doesn't write most of his own speeches. Given his current schedule, I'm sure he has assitance with some of his current speeches, but I'm just as sure he has the final editorial say in what he presents in public.

While you're at it, dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can find those kinds of credentials and a history of writing for Palin, or even McShame. Neither of them is anywhere near as smart as Obama, let alone as eloquent based on their own writing.

Eloquence or smarts ain't gonna win this election for Obama. America does not need an elitist from Harvard and Columbia (aka Elitist League) that is out of touch with the people. They want someone with street smarts, someone that understand what Americans are going through, someone that is coming from Middle America. Out of the four top dogs, the only one that truly corresponds to this is Sarah Palin and that is why McCain will win the election come November.

Obama looks pretty good on paper but the majority of Americans are not impressed by that. I mean, didn't Bush graduate from Yale? Did you see how well that turned out?

A good school looks good on paper but it does not teach you everything.

I read an article about you today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...ref=slogin&oref=slogin
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,682
40,038
136
Are you kidding me?

No, you're providing the comedy here. Doing a pretty swell job too I might add! But you didn't even attempt to answer my questions, so I guess I'll take that to mean you're not contesting that unlike Palin, Obama has the merit to write his own speeches. Thx!

Do you have proof Obama writes more of his own speeches than Palin?

Harvey seems to have already provided something akin to what I was going to post, so I'll leave it at that. Seems odd though, as technically you're the one carrying the burden of proof - Obama speaking for himself predates your partisan tantrum, sorry. Case in point: the two aren't on the same level. Not saying she's GWB lazy/stupid, she's just no scholar.

Academic background has nothing to do with it.

Spoken like a true Bush fluffer. Bravo.

I've listened the the man plenty of times but am smart enough to look at his record, rather than his promises.

And yet you're smart enough to let that not apply to Palin herself...lol...
Your one-way skepticism is as lame as your attempt at impartiality. You're smart enough to know academic background has no meaning. Wonderful. :)


But of course, you're obviously missing the whole point of choosing Palin as a running mate in the first place.

Oh do tell, Oh Enlightened One. At the risk of thread derailment and indulging your lame strawman, this I gotta hear...


 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Corbett

Are you kidding me? Do you have proof Obama writes more of his own speeches than Palin?

ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

How Obama Writes His Speeches

By JAY NEWTON-SMALL / DENVER
Thursday, Aug. 28, 2008

Barack Obama is usually the candidate who begs his staff to let him take one more question at every event, but this week he hasn't been a man to linger. Even though his public schedule was relatively light, behind the scenes he was racing his own internal clock to finish what is the most important speech of his career.

Four years ago Obama spent months writing the convention speech that would catapult him onto the national stage. Even though he was busy with his day job in the Illinois State Senate and was running for the U.S. Senate, Obama would find time to scribble thoughts, often sneaking off the State Senate floor to the men's room to jot down ideas, or writing in the car as he campaigned across southern Illinois. It took him months to gather all those fleeting ideas and craft his acclaimed keynote speech.
.
.
Obama takes an unusually hands-on approach to his speech writing, more so than most politicians. His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads. He then logs these thoughts into his laptop, editing as he goes along. This is how he wrote both of his two best selling books?Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope?staying up after Michelle and his two young daughters had long gone to bed, reveling in the late night quiet. For this speech Obama removed himself from the distractions at home and spent many nights in a room in the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago. These late-night sessions produced long, meandering texts that were then circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau?a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith. "When you're working with Senator Obama the main player on a speech is Senator Obama," Axelrod said. "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would."
.
.

Hell! Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, a group of 80 student editors who publish a regular journal of legal writings. That only happens to someone who is a highly skilled writer.

I'll toss it back to you. Dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can prove he doesn't write most of his own speeches. Given his current schedule, I'm sure he has assitance with some of his current speeches, but I'm just as sure he has the final editorial say in what he presents in public.

While you're at it, dig as far and deep as you want to see if you can find those kinds of credentials and a history of writing for Palin, or even McShame. Neither of them is anywhere near as smart as Obama, let alone as eloquent based on their own writing.

If you actually believe Obama doesnt have team to help him with his speeches, you are even more blind that I thought!
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,682
40,038
136
If you actually believe Obama doesnt have team to help him with his speeches, you are even more blind that I thought!


Look who's fvcking talking! He just wrote, and I quote:

Given his current schedule, I'm sure he has assitance with some of his current speeches, but I'm just as sure he has the final editorial say in what he presents in public.


Time to hang it up for the night Corbett, your powers (using that loosely) of perception are obviously leaving you...:roll: You can't even get Harvey's plain text down pat, yet I'm supposed to believe that wrt Obama you have

listened the the man plenty of times but am smart enough to look at his record, rather than his promises.


Uh huh, ok, time for you to go to bed. Do us all a favor and stay there.



 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: kage69
If you actually believe Obama doesnt have team to help him with his speeches, you are even more blind that I thought!


Look who's fvcking talking! He just wrote, and I quote:

Given his current schedule, I'm sure he has assitance with some of his current speeches, but I'm just as sure he has the final editorial say in what he presents in public.


Time to hang it up for the night Corbett, your powers (using that loosely) of perception are obviously leaving you...:roll: You can't even get Harvey's plain text down pat, yet I'm supposed to believe that wrt Obama you have
listened the the man plenty of times but am smart enough to look at his record, rather than his promises.


Yes, time for you to go to bed. Do us all a favor and stay there.

So then we all agree? Obama doesnt write all his own speeches. Thanks for clarifying.

Sorry Harvey, I didnt read your whole post! Good to see your not as blind as Kage is
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: sammyunltd

Eloquence or smarts ain't gonna win this election for Obama. America does not need an elitist from Harvard and Columbia (aka Elitist League) that is out of touch with the people. They want someone with street smarts, someone that understand what Americans are going through, someone that is coming from Middle America. Out of the four top dogs, the only one that truly corresponds to this is Sarah Palin and that is why McCain will win the election come November.

Obama looks pretty good on paper but the majority of Americans are not impressed by that. I mean, didn't Bush graduate from Yale? Did you see how well that turned out?

A good school looks good on paper but it does not teach you everything.

So being smart isn't a good thing, lets elect Palin you are saying. I'm just confused on why we should hire the regular run of the mill person to run a country of 300 million people, and not the best we can? We are running a country here, not a town that smaller then some highschools. A town she managed to run into the ground and massive debt. Yes, just the person to get!
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: kage69
Are you kidding me?

No, you're providing the comedy here. Doing a pretty swell job too I might add! But you didn't even attempt to answer my questions, so I guess I'll take that to mean you're not contesting that unlike Palin, Obama has the merit to write his own speeches. Thx!

Do you have proof Obama writes more of his own speeches than Palin?

Harvey seems to have already provided something akin to what I was going to post, so I'll leave it at that. Seems odd though, as technically you're the one carrying the burden of proof - Obama speaking for himself predates your partisan tantrum, sorry. Case in point: the two aren't on the same level. Not saying she's GWB lazy/stupid, she's just no scholar.

Academic background has nothing to do with it.

Spoken like a true Bush fluffer. Bravo.

I've listened the the man plenty of times but am smart enough to look at his record, rather than his promises.

And yet you're smart enough to let that not apply to Palin herself...lol...
Your one-way skepticism is as lame as your attempt at impartiality. You're smart enough to know academic background has no meaning. Wonderful. :)


But of course, you're obviously missing the whole point of choosing Palin as a running mate in the first place.

Oh do tell, Oh Enlightened One. At the risk of thread derailment and indulging your lame strawman, this I gotta hear...

You fail to realize that Palin has ripped the mantra of "change" right out of Obama's hands. Obama can have all his academic accolades, but as his speeches fade, Palin's experience shines.

and as for my comment on McCains reasoning for choosing Palin, well, you seem to think you're smarter than everyone, and is glaringly obvious, so I'll leave it for you to figure out.
 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: sammyunltd

Eloquence or smarts ain't gonna win this election for Obama. America does not need an elitist from Harvard and Columbia (aka Elitist League) that is out of touch with the people. They want someone with street smarts, someone that understand what Americans are going through, someone that is coming from Middle America. Out of the four top dogs, the only one that truly corresponds to this is Sarah Palin and that is why McCain will win the election come November.

Obama looks pretty good on paper but the majority of Americans are not impressed by that. I mean, didn't Bush graduate from Yale? Did you see how well that turned out?

A good school looks good on paper but it does not teach you everything.

So being smart isn't a good thing, lets elect Palin you are saying. I'm just confused on why we should hire the regular run of the mill person to run a country of 300 million people, and not the best we can? We are running a country here, not a town that smaller then some highschools. A town she managed to run into the ground and massive debt. Yes, just the person to get!

I would agree with you if the country was doing well. However, the reason why America is so deep in **** is because the leaders were out of touch (elitists) with the population. In other words, they let everything crash and now it will be up to the next administration to recover.

Recovering will be a challenge, challenge that can be surpassed only by people that really KNOW where the problems are, hence the importance of having a down-to-earth, "middle American", "anti-Elitist" President. An Elitist president will probably try some programs that would work well on paper but only to backfire a couple of years down the road (like it happened for Bush). A normal American would be more sensible to the needs of the population/Average Joe and would be more effective.

Just like in 2004, the Democratic candidate is too elitist for the masses. Kerry was a cold SOAB. Obama is just... too elitist.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,803
126
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: sammyunltd

Eloquence or smarts ain't gonna win this election for Obama. America does not need an elitist from Harvard and Columbia (aka Elitist League) that is out of touch with the people. They want someone with street smarts, someone that understand what Americans are going through, someone that is coming from Middle America. Out of the four top dogs, the only one that truly corresponds to this is Sarah Palin and that is why McCain will win the election come November.

Obama looks pretty good on paper but the majority of Americans are not impressed by that. I mean, didn't Bush graduate from Yale? Did you see how well that turned out?

A good school looks good on paper but it does not teach you everything.

So being smart isn't a good thing, lets elect Palin you are saying. I'm just confused on why we should hire the regular run of the mill person to run a country of 300 million people, and not the best we can? We are running a country here, not a town that smaller then some highschools. A town she managed to run into the ground and massive debt. Yes, just the person to get!

I would agree with you if the country was doing well. However, the reason why America is so deep in **** is because the leaders were out of touch (elitists) with the population. In other words, they let everything crash and now it will be up to the next administration to recover.

Recovering will be a challenge, challenge that can be surpassed only by people that really KNOW where the problems are, hence the importance of having a down-to-earth, "middle American", "anti-Elitist" President. An Elitist president will probably try some programs that would work well on paper but only to backfire a couple of years down the road (like it happened for Bush). A normal American would be more sensible to the needs of the population/Average Joe and would be more effective.

Just like in 2004, the Democratic candidate is too elitist for the masses. Kerry was a cold SOAB. Obama is just... too elitist.

Wow, that's quite the juggling act you got going on there. Your "Elitist" Leaders are actually Anti-Elitists that were chosen to Lead due to their lack of Elitism. Seems to me to be the center of your Nations' problems right there.
 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: sammyunltd

Eloquence or smarts ain't gonna win this election for Obama. America does not need an elitist from Harvard and Columbia (aka Elitist League) that is out of touch with the people. They want someone with street smarts, someone that understand what Americans are going through, someone that is coming from Middle America. Out of the four top dogs, the only one that truly corresponds to this is Sarah Palin and that is why McCain will win the election come November.

Obama looks pretty good on paper but the majority of Americans are not impressed by that. I mean, didn't Bush graduate from Yale? Did you see how well that turned out?

A good school looks good on paper but it does not teach you everything.

So being smart isn't a good thing, lets elect Palin you are saying. I'm just confused on why we should hire the regular run of the mill person to run a country of 300 million people, and not the best we can? We are running a country here, not a town that smaller then some highschools. A town she managed to run into the ground and massive debt. Yes, just the person to get!

I would agree with you if the country was doing well. However, the reason why America is so deep in **** is because the leaders were out of touch (elitists) with the population. In other words, they let everything crash and now it will be up to the next administration to recover.

Recovering will be a challenge, challenge that can be surpassed only by people that really KNOW where the problems are, hence the importance of having a down-to-earth, "middle American", "anti-Elitist" President. An Elitist president will probably try some programs that would work well on paper but only to backfire a couple of years down the road (like it happened for Bush). A normal American would be more sensible to the needs of the population/Average Joe and would be more effective.

Just like in 2004, the Democratic candidate is too elitist for the masses. Kerry was a cold SOAB. Obama is just... too elitist.

Wow, that's quite the juggling act you got going on there. Your "Elitist" Leaders are actually Anti-Elitists that were chosen to Lead due to their lack of Elitism. Seems to me to be the center of your Nations' problems right there.

Yeah, but in 2004, the USA were not in bad shape, not compared to now. 2004 was a different context. Unfortunately for you, we are in 2008 and what America needs in 2008 is more of Palin and McCain (some true down-to-earth and inspiring leaders for many millions of Americans) and less of the same old Elitist league (the Obamas, as Mr. Westmoreland said, are uppity).
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Actually, some people are confused by what 'elitist' means. Talking eloquently and extensively about matters of importance is not elitist, it's respectful. Insulting a voter's intelligence by dumbing down your speeches to one liners, slogans, wedge issues, and name calling is. Assuming that the voter is too dumb to understand the "Ivy League" talk and instead speaking to them like a redneck is the real elitism.
Also, when you are sick, you don't go to a doctor who is sick himself so he "KNOWS" about being sick, but to one who has studied about your sickness, so this assumptions that educated people don't "KNOW" what the problems are because they aren't directly impacted is patently false. Also, Gore was the designated "elitist" in 2000, not Bush, and Kerry was the designated "elitist" in 2004. So electing the opponent of the "elitist" candidate is not necessarily the best idea, because chances are that he is the real elitist.