Paul Ryan is a pathological liar and a smug little prick. That’s all we need to know about this putz. Michelle Obama on the other hand is just the opposite.
Michelle’s speech was masturful and delivered extremely well. But — I kept thinking of the chasm between what she was describing and how Obasma governs, It was a speech to stir the soul of Democrats, and it stirred mine — until I realized it was her speech, not his, and very likely these are her values and not his.
But it was wonderful, it was fun to watch and listen to. It was not at all boring and she never ever talked down to her audience. She had them in the palm of her hand and treated them well. Both the audience in the hall and those watching on TV.
Fabulously well done.
Lovely aesthetics. That’s what the Democratic Party is now with regard to their once-held principles: all form, no content. The Democratic Party “looks” better than the Republican Party. But Obama is deporting more Latinos than Bush did. He codified the Hyde Amendment and restricted access to Plan B because he is a “father” and I guess in a patriarchy father’s decisions rule. He deepened teh war on drugs that decimates the African-American community. His stance on gay rights is “evolving.” So how exactly is the appearance of the Democratic Party at all in keeping with it’s content?
And let’s not even talk about the shredding of the Constitution and the complicate abdication of responsibility for unemployment nor the refusal to apply the rule of law to Wall Street to the extent of allowing Corzine and JP Morgan to walk off with customer money scott-free.
Sorry — but I’m a little nauseated by the gushing over Michelle and the way progressives excuse Obama — I can’t see how that all wins over the vast majority of voters who are hurting and who aren’t allowed any excuses in their own lives.
I’m not “gushing,” nor am I excusing Obama. I simply thought it was a good effective speech. It’s a commercial, what do you expect?
Paul Ryan is a pathological liar and a smug little prick. That’s all we need to know about this putz. Michelle Obama on the other hand is just the opposite.
Michelle’s speech was masturful and delivered extremely well. But — I kept thinking of the chasm between what she was describing and how Obasma governs, It was a speech to stir the soul of Democrats, and it stirred mine — until I realized it was her speech, not his, and very likely these are her values and not his.
But it was wonderful, it was fun to watch and listen to. It was not at all boring and she never ever talked down to her audience. She had them in the palm of her hand and treated them well. Both the audience in the hall and those watching on TV.
Fabulously well done.
Lovely aesthetics. That’s what the Democratic Party is now with regard to their once-held principles: all form, no content. The Democratic Party “looks” better than the Republican Party. But Obama is deporting more Latinos than Bush did. He codified the Hyde Amendment and restricted access to Plan B because he is a “father” and I guess in a patriarchy father’s decisions rule. He deepened teh war on drugs that decimates the African-American community. His stance on gay rights is “evolving.” So how exactly is the appearance of the Democratic Party at all in keeping with it’s content?
And let’s not even talk about the shredding of the Constitution and the complicate abdication of responsibility for unemployment nor the refusal to apply the rule of law to Wall Street to the extent of allowing Corzine and JP Morgan to walk off with customer money scott-free.
Sorry — but I’m a little nauseated by the gushing over Michelle and the way progressives excuse Obama — I can’t see how that all wins over the vast majority of voters who are hurting and who aren’t allowed any excuses in their own lives.
I’m not “gushing,” nor am I excusing Obama. I simply thought it was a good effective speech. It’s a commercial, what do you expect?