President Obama had a high bar set for his speech at the Democratic National Convention last week. Rousing speakers at both the RNC and DNC had given the public their fill of oratory over the last two weeks, and after Bill Clinton’s excellent speech (even Republicans across the aisle gave begrudging respect to Clinton’s commanding presence), Americans were expecting President Obama to come out strong.
Pundits were calling it one of the most important speeches he’d have to give. While that may have been an exaggeration, President Obama’s speech was still a pivotal event in the campaign dialogue and his bid for re-election.
The speech carried with it both the motivational prose that made the President famous four years earlier while also carrying the weight of having seen the country through four difficult years. Obama’s speech was that of a sitting president at a convention. Much like his predecessors, (especially Reagan), the shift in tone was reflective of a man who knows what has been accomplished, but realizes that much remains incomplete.
As he laid forth plans for bringing back jobs lost in the recession, such as encouraging growth of the manufacturing base and his plan to provide a million new jobs in the sector, he empathized with those he interacted with who were suffering. The speech was a poignant reflection of the challenges we have all faced over the last four years.
Obama’s speech was a capstone to an exceptional convention. As he laid out his goals going forward, he inspired a base which had been unified by speeches earlier in the week from Michelle Obama and President Clinton. This was his once more into the breach, his Charge of the Light Brigade speech. It provided a banner for the base to rally around going into the final stretch of the election. This was the critical difference in the RNC and DNC.
While the RNC served as a last ditch attempt to unify the base, with much of the rhetoric being anti-Obama, the DNC took a unified base and molded it into an effective force to project the vision and hopes President Obama has going forward for America. The key difference is that the DNC wasn’t focused around being anti-Romney, it was about being pro-America.
The DNC worked on almost every level. It avoided any major negative pitfalls (I’m looking at you Clint Eastwood), while rallying the base and providing a cohesive message for the few undecided who still watch the political conventions. This convention isn’t going to be a game changer though. The ability of a political convention to make or break a campaign has been greatly diminished in the 21st century. What the convention did was make sure that for the next 60 days, while Republicans attempt to rally the stagnant base in critical states, the Democrats can focus entirely on the ground game and debates which will shape the election going forward.
I could cheer about how I think the DNC was superior (a partly objective assessment, to be sure), but instead I choose to focus on moving forward with helping the President improve America in our cities and towns.
Reprinted from State Senator Curt Thompson's (D-5th) blog. Also, check the Senator out on Facebook and Twitter.
You may dislike "Mittens", as you call him, but he can't possibly be as destructive to our country as Obozo.
The United States uses around 20% of the world's oil, but only sits on around 2% of the oil reserves. Even though the U.S. is drilling more today, there is no way it could keep up completely with demand by only drilling inside its borders. Over the last three years since President Obama has taken office, the United States reliance on foreign oil has dropped. In 2010, the U.S. dependence on foreign oil dropped below 50 percent for the first time in over a decade. While the U.S. is producing more of its own oil and relying less on others, gas prices are still high. A possible war with Iran, uncertainty with Israel, the possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz and other issues in the Middle East has caused oil prices to rise. Republicans can blame President Obama all they want, but the facts are the facts. As gas prices increased in 2008, the Fox News Channel was quick to defend President Bush and his inability to do much about the rising cost of gas. We fast forward to 2012, and they seem to forget their former position and take the Republican party line of bashing President Obama. Who should you blame for rising gas prices? You can point to the Middle East, oil companies or Wall Street, but pointing your finger only at President Obama is just not right
Vendor ERROR? The President should have NO problem getting the correct supplier for our own battle groups or is our dependence on European intelligence our new weakness? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/dnc-russian-warships-convention-image-181737864--election.html?_esi=1&bcmt=1347480115454-154a9676-0818-47bc-b86e-f81c2d9b1ba7&bcmt_s=e#ugccmt-container-b The organizers of the Democratic National Convention apologized on Wednesday for accidentally using an image of Soviet-era Russian warships in its backdrop during a tribute to veterans at last week's convention in Charlotte, N.C. The ships were shown on a screen behind 50 veterans assembled onstage Sept. 6 during a presentation by retired Adm. John Nathman. The warships—believed to be part of the Russian Black Sea Fleet—were first spotted by Rob Barker, a former naval electronics warfare technician, who notified the Navy Times. Naval historians solicited by the Navy Times confirmed the background showed four ships "with radar designs not used" in the U.S. fleet.
I thought airliners flying into buildings and fields were responsible for at least one of the 2 wars you mention …
http://duluth.patch.com/blog_posts/reagan-never-wouldve-made-it-out-of-the-primaries-for-a-second-term
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-mitt-romneys-bucket-brigade/2012/09/12/1aa4fde0-fd2c-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html?hpid=z2
Obama is a disaster.
http://www.themindisaterriblething.com/2011/10/rewriting-history.html
Come on Dave! Crude is high because market demand in emerging countries are high. The oil companies say...(the price is higher because of increased demands and the technology used to get that oil.) So which is it...Obama and his policies or free market greed? I think its the latter....All companies do is protect the bottom line. As more folks become shareholders in Oil the greater the greed as they have to satisfy these folks. Bread use to be a buck. Its now two bucks. Prices never go down they only go up.
You're ignoring the facts. Crude is now cheaper than it was when gas was selling for less. When Bush was in office, liberals blamed him for high gas prices. After Obama was in office, the song changed to "the president can't control the price of gas". You can't have it both ways-- at least not if you're being honest. Speculators drove the price of crude oil to $150/barrel when demand was high a few years ago. When the world economic condition took a dive, demand dropped, which brought prices down. The reduced demand also made oil less attractive as a speculative investment, so prices dropped even further. Obama's fiscal [policies have led to a national debt of $16 trillion and a downgrade in the US credit rating. As a consequence, the value of the dollar has declined so expenses in international trade has increased. For a myriad of reasons, gasoline costs more now, with oil selling for +/-$100 a barrel than it did when oil was +/- $150 a barrel. Yet another Obama failure.
There's always some amount of lag between the price of crude oil and the pump price of gasoline, so comparing prices for specific dates may or may not be truly representative. However, the trend over a broader time frame is absolutely indicative of the relevant economics. Obama's policies have simply made the price of gasoline more expensive that it should be based on the cost of crude oil. Ironically, the people that this hurts the most are the ones Obama alleges he's trying to help.
Hi Dave, I'm jumping in to ask for some clarification. You seem to acknowledge that the price of crude is lower today than when it peaked in 2008. You're also highlighting that, at least for today, the prices at the pump are higher, relative to the cost of crude. So, you seem to give the President's policies no credit whatsoever for reducing the cost of crude, but you simultaneously appear to blame President Obama, exclusively, for the today's high prices at the pump (subject to change) relative to the cost of crude. In other words, President Obama is responsible for the higher gains for oil companies (which would seem to defy the notion by some he is some kind of socialist). Am I understanding you correctly? If so, specifically which policies are you referring to that, while have no bearing on reductions in the price of crude, lead to higher prices at the pump?
Don't you recall the Obama Inflated Gasoline Deflated Crude Oil Pricing Policy of 2010? Buck up on your research before you start spouting off left wing crazy-talk.
Your position is that the disparity between the prices of oil and gasoline are a result of increased oil company profits. We don't know that to be true, because we don't know the amount of profit oil companies make on a gallon of gas. As for Obama's policies driving down the price of crude oil, you're saying that the president can control or influence the price of a commodity that's traded world-wide. On the other hand, you're saying that because the costs associated with transporting and refining crude oil as well as the costs of storing, marketing and distributing gasoline have no bearing on crude oil prices, they do not influence the price of gas at the pump. I think you'll find that the costs imposed by needless and redundant regulation play a big part in driving up the costs gasoline and a host of other products.
Dave, Thanks for your response. To be clear, I didn't say or imply ANY of the things that you inferred from my comments. For example, you claimed that my position is that an increase in the disparity between the price of crude and gas prices would be the result of higher oil profits. To the contrary, all else being equal, higher profits would result from increases in such disparity. Also, I did not say or imply that Obama is responsible for driving down the price of crude. To the contrary, your seem to be implying that Obama should receive no credit for positive developments in crude prices but should get the all the blame for negative developments in gasoline prices. That's incomprehensible to me, but nevertheless. Getting back to my original question, you first wrote, "Obama's policies have simply made the price of gasoline more expensive that it should be based on the cost of crude oil." I asked you to specifically to identify the policies that you're referring to. Your response to my question comes down to "the costs imposed by needless and redundant regulation play a big part in driving up the costs gasoline." I'll rephrase the question. SPECIFICALLY, what needless and redundant regulation are your referring to that has played a big part in driving up gasoline costs?
Netanyahu may not in fact be trying to interfere with our elections at all but simply trying to get factual policy statements with timelines. To tell the truth so would many of us, the President has no problem with providing timetables to the public on other security matters. Our foreign policy right now apparently is in shambles just based on existing embassy security. I can’t get my head around news reports that state our embassy based Marines were carrying weapons without ANY ammunition – not even of the rubber bullet variety. I hope with all my heart that this tidbit ISN’t really factual. Ordering people into positions where they can’t defend themselves as ROE is a base violation of common sense. You can take to the airways and say “I support the troops” as much as you like, but when you accept operations where you disarm them in routine service this PROVES your total lack of respect. As to the brutal treatment of rocket based groups in territories, your claims ring shrew and hollow.
The source of the data I posted is http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm Those are the prices listed by the New York Mercantile Exchange I'm not trying to prove anything, the statistics speak for themselves. But it is apparent from your closing statement that irrespective of any data, your position is that private industry is a villain that's responsible for anything that impacts our lives negatively, and government is responsible for everything positive. Without having any data upon which to base your statement, and while ignoring the costs associated with all the steps required to convert crude oil into gasoline, you suggest that the reason for high gas prices is oil company price gouging. Such a statement completely ignores the economic realities of the costs involved in bringing a product to market.
Landslide? In CA maybe, but elsewhere not so much …
I'm still curious to learn which of Obama's policies, specifically which needless and redundant regulations, have played a big part in driving up gasoline prices. It seems to me that if somebody is going to make this assertion that they would be prepared to support it with specifics.
You have repeatedly asserted that Obama's policies--"needless and redundant regulation"--are responsible for today's gas prices. Unfortunately, despite my requests, you've refused to support these assertions with specifics. Please feel free to get back when you figure out why you believe what you believe. I'll stay tuned.
In my defense, I'm interested in any opinion than can be supported by evidence. In this case, it appears that you were parroting a talk-radio meme without having checked it out first. If you want to absorb unsupported opinions directly into the bloodstream, then that's your prerogative. But you can't reasonably fault others for being more discriminating about what they choose to accept as truth. Make it a great weekend, Dave!