My Take on Obama’s Speech

On Thursday night, Barack Obama accepted the Presidential nomination from the Democrat Party. The speech that he delivered was powerful and sounded positively Aaron Sorkin-esque (I’ve seen “The American President” many times and heard the echoes). I have to believe that the average American watching this speech was deeply moved, and that’s what saddens me. Here’s why.

Obama warned against making “a big election about small things.” And no doubt the genuflecting media will agree with Obama that issues like “abortion” and “gay marriage” are small things about which citizens should no longer trouble their political consciences. Sadly, there are many “evangelicals” who are helping Obama make that case.

As a result of this speech, the average citizen will be moved indeed—moved further away from concern about the unborn and further away from concern about the fundamental building block of society, the family. These are the “small” things that Obama encouraged citizens to forget about. Many will. Many already have.

I was struck how news anchors and analysts lost all objectivity in their coverage of this speech. Andrea Mitchell was openly weeping on MSNBC. For many minutes immediately following the speech, the cameras were kept away from Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, who looked to have been composing themselves after crying. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer spoke about how “blessed” he was to be a part of this event. Even Patrick Buchanan was gushing. Who can compete with that kind of emotion? Not the Republicans next week. That’s for sure.

This was the best worst speech I’ve ever heard. That’s what makes it so dangerous.

67 Responses to My Take on Obama’s Speech

  1. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:25 am #

    The media was crying??? That is scary.

  2. selahV August 29, 2008 at 12:34 am #

    Hello, Take heart my friend. One fancy speech does not a prophet make. “The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me.” Ps.138:8

    “we are not wrestling against flesh and blood but principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Obama says,
    “This election has never been about me, it’s about you.” Oh how Satan wants us to get all caught up in ourselves and think this is all about us–our finances, our gas problems, our hopes our dreams. Funny, that at Saddleback Obama said right off in the first words to Rick Warren that he appreciated the words, “it’s not about you”. Yet, tonite he tells people it is about them.

    Whatever happens in St.Paul is not nearly as important as what happens when we bow before His throne tonite. God bless you. selahV

  3. Prime Time Money August 29, 2008 at 12:40 am #

    “That’s what makes it so dangerous.” Could not agree more.

    We just have to remember that others aren’t under our control. We can only go vote for ourselves.

  4. Daniel Davis August 29, 2008 at 9:02 am #

    come on denny, obama giving a speech that was powerful and moving? you know you aren’t supposed to say anything positive about him, right??

    i too found the “news” comments regarding the speech to be little more than personal affective comments, but crying…

  5. Nathan August 29, 2008 at 9:02 am #

    The messiah (I mean Obama) had his day. Give him his due. However, remember conventions are set up for this. They are staged… They are not real.

    This election still boils down to about 6-8 states, maybe only 3-4. Always did. That is the electoral map this country lies in and has for the last 12+ years.

    McCain has opportunity, even today, to trump Obama should he select Hutchinson as his running mate to snag those voters still incensed at Obama for not picking Hillary as his running mate.

    While there are plenty of kool-aid drinking messiah followers, there are also plenty who think that what you do and what you have done, means more than what you promise.

    The truly unfortunate aspect of this election is the inability of young conservatives to rise to the occasion and seek higher offices.

  6. Darius August 29, 2008 at 9:12 am #

    Nathan, I think you mean Obamessiah.

  7. Brian (Another) August 29, 2008 at 9:17 am #

    You know, anyone can nitpick the speech, but (from the speech):

    “…in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.”

    Sums up to me that Mr. Obama sees hope as what is here and what we do, and not in our savior (which, to point out, is his professed belief).

    And next week, McCain will make the same silly statements, but it makes me laugh when politicians say things like:

    ”I will…find ways to safely harness nuclear power.”

    I know what he means, but it’s comical. Candidates (and this is all sides, indy’s included) will “promise” better economy or (in this particular case) independence from oil based on items that they have absolutely no control over (given they have control outside of Sovereignty).

    Also (and perhaps this is nitpicking), CNN “breaking news” said that the Senator told a packed stadium that he accepts “with profound gratitude and great humility.” Can you do something with great humility in front of gigantic greek columns in a football stadium? OK, that’s just picking. But I do have to ask why that is “breaking news”.

  8. Scott August 29, 2008 at 9:20 am #

    So those who support Obama are “evangelicals”?

    Thanks for the insults. I didn’t know I had to wed my politics to my faith.

  9. Darius August 29, 2008 at 9:24 am #

    Apparently you can divorce them…

  10. Michael Metts August 29, 2008 at 9:25 am #

    I had to turn it off after about the 37th insult to the Bush administration. Barack has spent his entire campaign insulting the POTUS. What accomplishment is there, worth tears, for this lack of integrity and constant aspersion?

    I was reminded of a resurrection debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. Near the end, during the question and answer session, a college student asked Crossan to simply state his own case or assessment of the evidence since Crossan had spent the entire debate only attacking, in an ad hominem fashion, Craig. Crossan would not answer the question though. The audience cheered the college student.

    It makes me wonder what Barack would do if he could not attack Bush (or even talk about Bush). Would he still have a decent chance at the presidency?

    I found his incredulous claims of “change” to be incongruent with his cutting of taxes. He is proposing entire new industries in oil, auto, and more. How is he going to pay for this? I turned it off right when he started to explain his financial strategies.

  11. Nathan August 29, 2008 at 9:43 am #

    Darius,

    I meant messiah with a little “m”

    There are plenty who believe Obama to be exactly that. Just as there were plenty that believed Jim Jones to be that as well.

    Don’t you know.. Obama will transcend us into a new era.. The tides will turn back…

    These followers have no concept of what government control leads to. But that is probably because they did not have to live through the 1970s and suffer through the results of the Great Society.

    I wonder how many, even here in this forum, ever lived (not counting as a child) through the economic disasters of the 70s and even the 80s and big government; Mortgages at 15-20% interest rates, tax rates off the charts.

    At least in the 70s illegal immigrants were not sucking up services; you actually had to be a citizen to get government funding. Even legal aliens were not allowed to immigrate and then sponge off the government; they were expected to get a job.

  12. Kyle Barrett August 29, 2008 at 10:14 am #

    I agree Brian (in #7). I kept thinking about Napoleon Dynamite. Vote for Pedro and he’ll make all your wildest dreams come true!

  13. Paul August 29, 2008 at 10:31 am #

    Michael in #10:

    I agree that I also asked about 18 times in the course of his speech, “how is he going to pay for that?”

    As for attacking Bush, you’re talking about a president so bad that even Peggy Noonan and Pat Buchanan think he’s terrible. So, of course, the dems and liberal independents (like myself) are going to think that he’s the second coming of Jimmy Carter (actually, all things considered, that’s not incredibly far off…)

    And Michael, if you’re going to turn off candidates when they make ad hominem attacks, you needed to turn off McCain long ago.

    As for Nathan in #11:

    “At least in the 70s illegal immigrants were not sucking up services; you actually had to be a citizen to get government funding. Even legal aliens were not allowed to immigrate and then sponge off the government; they were expected to get a job.”

    Remember, it’s the republicans that refuse to go after BUSINESSES that are hiring illegal immigrants (in other words, the only way to actually stop illegal immigration…stop giving them reason to be here).

  14. John August 29, 2008 at 10:33 am #

    You’re basing your opinion off of something that was not said Denny. That was the worst take of his speech I have seen yet. You need to give credit where credit is due Denny and stop acting so partisan.

  15. Darius August 29, 2008 at 10:41 am #

    John, you want Denny to give credit to an anti-Christ moment where everyone was genuflecting to Obama? They have their savior, and when he loses, the wrath on “middle America” will be quite unending from Hollywood.

  16. Moz August 29, 2008 at 10:47 am #

    Sarah Palin is McCain’s VP choice. The momentum has officially shiften. Excellent choice for McCain.

  17. Moz August 29, 2008 at 10:47 am #

    I meant to say shifted.

  18. Paul August 29, 2008 at 10:51 am #

    she’ll make for good photo ops, and I do appreciate the fact that she unleashed some whistleblowing fury on her own party, but I can’t see how she’s ready for the presidency when McCain dies in office.

    What it really does is prove what a great choice Biden really was for VP.

  19. Darius August 29, 2008 at 10:52 am #

    How was Biden a good choice? This is a guy who said that Obama wasn’t ready to be president, and about whom Obama said wasn’t fit to be in power because he voted for the Iraq war. They are self-refuting.

  20. Darius August 29, 2008 at 10:54 am #

    I do agree that she doesn’t seem ready to be President, but I don’t think that will matter to the women who want to vote for a woman to have the chance at the presidency.

    What an amazing rise for this lady. And she’s a lifetime NRA member. Awesome!

  21. Paul August 29, 2008 at 10:55 am #

    Darius,

    surely you know better than to take what’s said in the primaries seriously.

    Heck, according to you, Reagan should have never picked Bush for VP, who called Trickle-Down Economics “voodoo economics” (and was right).

  22. Darius August 29, 2008 at 10:55 am #

    McCain planned that perfectly. All the buzz about Obama will be thrown out the window as the media shifts to figure out who this VP choice is.

  23. Cate August 29, 2008 at 11:06 am #

    Let me start by saying that I am not an Obama supporter. Howerever, as a Christian, I must say that I am appalled at the media, at John McCain, and at some on this blog who make references to Obama as the messiah or the anti-Christ or, as in McCain’s political ad, a Moses-like figure. First and foremost, if I believe Scripture, then I believe that the time of the anti-Christ will be an EXTREMELY SERIOUS time in the history of our world – and it is not a time to be taken lightly, nor should anti-Christ references and innuendos be used to refer to someone without serious contemplation — and it should not be used simply because a political figure disagrees with our worldview.

    The rhetoric of the phrase “an anti-Christ moment where everyone was genuflecting to Obama. They have their savior…” is serious and makes me want to throw up because it is tossed about so lightly here as a way of blasting Obama. Talk about the issues – talk about your disagreements — but don’t throw Christian rhetoric around without using it with caution and reverence.

    If you want to disagree with Obama, fine. If you don’t like his politics, fine. If you think Christians should do something about it, fine. But don’t bring into play one of the most serious accusations you could possibly make unless you really believe that Obama is the anti-Christ, even if you are only using a figure of speech.

  24. Cameron Moore August 29, 2008 at 11:08 am #

    Andria Mitchell was weeping? Seriously?! That’s so outrageous that I’ll have to see it to believe. Can you find the video on YouTube? I don’t want to spread hearsay.

    BTW, you can listen to Olbermann & Matthews gushing over the speech here. And for a good laugh, the great Peggy Noonan.

  25. Scott K August 29, 2008 at 11:09 am #

    Kudos Cate. I couldn’t get past my own nausea after reading most of the posts today to write a response of my own.

  26. Darius August 29, 2008 at 11:14 am #

    Cate, perhaps you should read my comment more closely next time. I never said that Obama is THE anti-Christ, just that he was treated like a messiah last night, which is the DEFINITION of an anti-Christ (a person who replaces Jesus as the savior of the world). I would never throw around such a term lightly.

  27. Michael Metts August 29, 2008 at 11:14 am #

    I will not be voting for McCain because I want to, but because it is necessary to keep Barack out of office.

    The media, Paul, has been unfair to President Bush. President Bush is a good man and capable president. He is easily appreciated when he is not foolishly making empty promises to win the hearts of the people.

  28. Nathan August 29, 2008 at 11:15 am #

    Paul,

    “Remember, it’s the republicans that refuse to go after BUSINESSES that are hiring illegal immigrants (in other words, the only way to actually stop illegal immigration…stop giving them reason to be here).”

    You’re missing my point: I agree that the Republicans have been guilty in many of these areas as well. In fact, Bush’s colonialism has been a travesty.

    But if you think Obama is going to reduce government, you are living in a dreamscape.

    He desires, campaigns, and has a past history of believing in government as the true answer to life’s problems.

    And that does not even touch the abortion, marriage, and hate-crimes stances that Obama supports.

  29. Darius August 29, 2008 at 11:18 am #

    This is an extremely serious moment in the world’s history; every time someone presumes to be able to save the world is a straw in the wind, one more step away from the REAL Savior of the world.

  30. Moz August 29, 2008 at 11:18 am #

    Paul,

    I don’t think her readiness to lead is a charge the DNC is prepared to level.

    She is the only person on either ticket with executive experiance.

  31. Moz August 29, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    Paul,

    Biden was the wrong choice for Obama. He highlights Obama’s lack of experience and is an insider, the kind of person Obama has said he is running against. Biden has said many times in the last year his now running-mate is not fit for the presidency. And now he supports Obama? Biden supported the war, and now Obama’s critique against Clinton doesnt count against Biden?

    Wrong man. Wrong ticket.

  32. Paul August 29, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    Michael,

    I do not deny that Bush is probably a great guy when not in office. Heck, as a Christian and as a fellow baseball fanatic, I am certain that I would have a wonderful time talking to him about a myriad of subjects.

    But to call him a capable president is to throw the facts out the window. One can argue that a capable president wouldn’t have gone to Iraq, but there is NO argument that a capable president would have handled it much better.

    A capable president wouldn’t have put buddies into office or nominated them (Gonzales, Brown and ESPECIALLY Miers), and instead, would have put up the best people for the job. Period.

    A capable president would have said to hell with ideologies and Blanco and Nagin, I’m sending the National Guard into New Orleans NOW. He did no such thing.

    A capable president would have vetoed the 2004 and 2005 budgets, even if they did come from congresses of his own party.

    Need me to go on?

  33. Darius August 29, 2008 at 11:27 am #

    A capable president did EXACTLY what he should have done with Katrina… allowed the local government to handle it.

  34. Michael Metts August 29, 2008 at 11:33 am #

    One can argue that a capable president wouldn’t have gone to Iraq, but there is NO argument that a capable president would have handled it much better.

    I’m not understanding your statement here. Can you rewrite it differently?

  35. Paul August 29, 2008 at 11:34 am #

    And when the local government is known for massive corruption and incompetence, you DO NOT show your own incompetence by letting ideology trump HUMAN FREAKING LIFE UNLESS YOU’RE A HEARTLESS CHUMP!

    Pro-life? When?

    Not when it comes to Iraq.

    Not when it comes to floods.

    Not when it comes to combating urban violence.

    Only when it’s politically expedient.

  36. Paul August 29, 2008 at 11:36 am #

    Michael,

    okay.

    Show me a conservative taste maker that thinks we should have gone into Iraq.

    You’ll find plenty.

    Show me a conservative taste maker that thinks we’ve handled the war properly since we’ve been there.

    You won’t find one that’s not a blatant Bush apologist.

  37. Darius August 29, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    Michael, I think Paul meant to say “One can argue that a capable president WOULD have gone to Iraq…”

    Paul, hindsight is always 20/20. No one knew that the local government would be COMPLETELY incompetent, nor did anyone know just how bad the flooding would be. The state and city have the RIGHT to take care of their people before the federal government comes stomping in and making things worse. Katrina was a great lesson for liberals (though one that wasn’t learned apparently) that the big government cannot solve problems on the local level because of how inefficient big government is.

  38. Darius August 29, 2008 at 11:40 am #

    Paul, there are always mistakes made. There were plenty of mistakes made in WWII, but people were wiser and kinder back then to not turn it all into bitter partisan opportunism. Bush and his advisors made mistakes, fine. Every war has them, and they cost lives and money. They have done what the liberal Democrats wouldn’t do though, they have LEARNED from their mistakes and fixed them.

  39. Michael Metts August 29, 2008 at 11:56 am #

    So, Bush is not a capable president because some feel he has handled the war in Iraq incorrectly? I think you’re gauging his capability more critically than the word necessitates. The last I had heard was that the Iraq war was a success. But I haven’t been keeping up with it.

    It seems harsh to think that President Bush is now competing among truly disastrous presidencies for this reason.

    Capable is not to say he is the best. But for a presidential candidate to campaign on President Bush’s unaffordable eight years in office is a gross intellectual statement and lacks integrity.

    I know a couple of soldiers personally who have served in Iraq. I have been told that the Iraqis are thankful for our efforts and do not want us to leave. I don’t think I have seen much media coverage to that affect though.

  40. Paul August 29, 2008 at 12:08 pm #

    Darius, the boo boos in WWII didn’t include soldiers going to war without everything they needed or a royal (expletive deleted) of a secretary of defense crowing, “sometimes you go to war with the army you’ve got, not the army you want.”

    In WWII, we waited until what, 1944 to invade Europe? We made sure we were ready. We made sure that we could get the job done. That’s something that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn’t have the forethought to do. That’s not being partisan, that’s speaking the truth. Get off the pseudo-partisan hobby horse and see that truth for what it is.

    As for Katrina, there was no lesson to learn. Nobody is going to deny the incompetence of the local government in Louisiana. But, once again, everybody knew that this hurricane was coming. Why didn’t Bush have the National Guard on hold waiting to rush in there to help? Ideology, in cases like this, is for jerks and punks. Give me real live action. Bush didn’t do it. He waited for the guitar playing photo-op, and still did next to squat.

  41. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:13 pm #

    Exactly what was wrong with what Rumsfeld said? That is the TRUTH. No country has EVER had the army they wanted, just the army they’ve got. We invaded Europe so late because we were isolationists, not because we were “getting ready.” Had Japan not attacked us, we might have entered the war too late.

  42. Michael Metts August 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm #

    So what was Barack’s financial strategy? He said himself that these changes would cost hundreds of billions.

  43. selahV August 29, 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    McCain can and will win meet any challenge the DNC hands out. selahV

  44. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:16 pm #

    Let’s stop and be honest for a second. Had Bush and today’s political scene been around in the 1940’s, Bush would have been eaten alive for ordering the D-Day invasion, which, though “successful,” lost thousands of lives just to get on the beach. Today, we lose a few soldiers and the Left is calling for impeachment.

  45. Paul August 29, 2008 at 12:22 pm #

    Darius,

    oh please. For one, Rumsfeld should have made sure that soldiers had proper body armour.

    Secondly, he deserves whatever dastardly ends he meets for denying death benefits to soldiers who were wearing non-Army issued body armour to soldiers killed in Iraq (do a little googling, you’ll find this one).

    Third, he had no business making that remark in public.

    As for not invading Europe in today’s climate, in our mamby-pamby, even republicans are afraid of the draft because they’re “not called”, atmosphere, we wouldn’t have had enough troops to go to Europe in the first place.

    So, raise that argument when you join me in calling for a return of the draft, with no loopholes.

  46. Nathan August 29, 2008 at 12:24 pm #

    Paul in (39):

    You are horribly mistaken if you think our soldiers in the Pacific and North Africa early in WWII had everything they needed..

    Many were still using WWI era equipment initially. In the Pacific theatre alone, supply lines along the island chains where haphazard at best.

  47. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    I wouldn’t mind a draft if there were no loopholes, I thought I just said this the other day. Of course, there is no reason for a draft most of the time. A draft should be a last resort. Let people have the freedom to serve of their choice.

  48. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm #

    Nathan, you beat me to it. Paul’s lack of historical knowledge is pretty funny, especially considering it was he who told someone else on this blog to go read a history book.

  49. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:29 pm #

    By the way Paul, Rumseld was set up for that statement. The soldier didn’t come up with the question, a reporter told him to ask it. Rumsfeld answered it honestly and correctly, no army in the history of the world has the best equipment available, because no army has unlimited finances.

  50. Paul August 29, 2008 at 12:30 pm #

    I know that the Pacific theater was a different scenario. We were attacked and needed to go on the offensive as soon as possible. And I know all sorts of stuff about the North African invasion (the paternal side of my family is largely Algerian), so, again, I get it.

    But, to say that we didn’t study every last angle of how to get in, out and around Europe before invading is to insult the efforts of the great generals that we had leading the invasion.

  51. Paul August 29, 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    Darius in #46:

    Bull. That “freedom to choose to serve” line is another way of cowering in a corner and saying “I don’t want to be shot at” in a gay lisp while prancing in pink dress.

    Look at the wussiness of our men these days.

    Look at the absolutely America-centric view our men have these days because they never leave.

    We’re setting up our country to be a nation of drooling incompetents.

  52. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    I never said that. You sir, are dishonest. I said that the reason we waited so long to invade had little to do with planning and much to do with isolationist politics (Ron Paul would have been quite popular back then).

  53. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    “Bull. That “freedom to choose to serve” line is another way of cowering in a corner and saying “I don’t want to be shot at” in a gay lisp while prancing in pink dress.

    Look at the wussiness of our men these days.

    Look at the absolutely America-centric view our men have these days because they never leave.

    We’re setting up our country to be a nation of drooling incompetents.”

    Ah, liberal elitism at it’s nastiest. I thought it wasn’t kosher for liberals to make gay jokes.

  54. Darius August 29, 2008 at 12:36 pm #

    Paul, could you give me a link to the story about Rumsfeld and armor and benefits. I can’t find anything in a quick search.

  55. Michael Metts August 29, 2008 at 12:41 pm #

    Obama n Biden

    Osama bin Laden

    lol

  56. Nathan August 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm #

    Paul in (49):

    Again you show you lack of historical knowledge of WWII. We invaded Sicily as soon as we had the opportunity. By the way, Sicily is in Europe and that conflict as well as the invasion of Italy was not a walk in the park.

    There was more chance of us getting defeated there than Iraq. You cannot even compare the two.

  57. Nathan August 29, 2008 at 12:48 pm #

    Paul,

    One other note: We still are not out of Europe… We have been there since World War II.

    So, no I don’t believe if you ask Americans in the 1940s if they believed we would still have troops in Europe 60+ years later, they would have laughed at you.

  58. Paul August 29, 2008 at 12:55 pm #

    Nathan,

    I don’t even understand why we still have troops in Germany. So, yeah, whatever.

    Korea I get. Germany? Not so much.

  59. Paul August 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm #

    Darius,

    I can’t find a news story on it, but here’s what looks to be a military blog, so that one’s got to be on the level…

    http://www.mainandcentral.org/archives/2006/01/point_blank_rag.html

  60. Ferg August 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm #

    I recommend everyone listen to Greg Boyd’s latest podcast ‘Defying Tanks’. I think you guys could learn a lot from it. I did.

    some trust in chariots…but we trust in the name of our Lord.
    America won’t save anyone. Christ will.

  61. Darius August 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Paul, I didn’t see any mention of Rumsfeld in there, nor even any solid evidence that the military would actually follow through on their threat. To the best of my knowledge, soldiers aren’t allowed to use their own personal weapons but only military-issued ones. So technically, this would fit inside those rules.

  62. Mclarko August 29, 2008 at 7:24 pm #

    I can’t understand why Barack Zeus Obama didn’t mention MLK in his speech at all. It’s the anniversary of the I Have a Dream speech, and the first black candidate for president did not even say his name. That’s almost as insulting as Biden saying that Obama is the first “African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

    Bush isn’t running for re-election; MSNBC should quit campaigning against him. McCain has been on the opposite side of Bush more times than I can count. Why do you think conservatives have seemed so dissatisfied with the pick of McCain? Palin helps him out a lot.

  63. ahunt August 29, 2008 at 11:43 pm #

    Today, we lose a few soldiers and the Left is calling for impeachment.

    You cannot mean what you appear to have said.

  64. Darius August 30, 2008 at 12:04 am #

    Relative to the number of troops we lost on D-Day, yes, I do mean what I have said. Every life lost is awful, but the cost of a war is more than counting lives lost. The Left today has no sense of proportion. The Iraq War has been phenomenally successful in terms of casualties, at least compared to history.

  65. Sandy August 31, 2008 at 5:18 pm #

    As Christians, we must never forget that God is in control. He is not wringing His hands hoping His candidate will win. I will not vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President or even dog catcher. Here in Illinois, we are used to Chicago style gangland politics. Our governor is living proof that the dead still vote in Cook County. Mayor Daley will see to it that the dead vote again and again for Obama. May God help us all to be strong.

  66. Paul September 7, 2008 at 11:29 am #

    Sandy,

    did someone put you up to a post like that?

    Seriously. Mentioning Blagojevich and Daley in the same sentence? They can’t stand each other. Heck, Rod’s own father in law can’t stand the guy.

    And, Obama won his senate seat in ’06 with 70% of the vote. Do you really think Daley’s worried about McCain being the Bernie Epson of the ’08 Presidential election?

    (and if you don’t know that name without doing a Wikipedia look up, you’ve got no business talking Chicago politics. Period.)

    Seriously. Illinois is state of less than 13 million people. 10 million of them live 5 counties. Obama’s gonna win Illinois on his own, without any help from dead voters. Write us off and go bug the people in Missouri.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Denny Burk » ‘Fatuous Suck-upping’ on Cable News - August 30, 2008

    […] two recent posts (here, here), I noted the unhidden bias of cable news coverage of the Democrat National Convention. I […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes