Chicagoist: Live Blogging Barack Obama (and Dick Durbin)'s Speech

dopplerd

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:20:48 -0600

Matilda: Sorry, I can't post any higher analysis as the direct taxation is something I came up with. It stems from my belief that any governmental budget is no more complicated than my checking account: it only works if the credits are more than the debits. I find it abhorrent that we are in year five of a war in Iraq (year 7 in Afghanistan) and it is still funded by an emergency appropriation. The direct taxation would be a powerful check against frivolous spending.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:41:50 -0600

It's an ugly, a clearly personal, little mess. I know a bit about Alaska, a good friend of mine is from Barrow of all places, and she always says that it's a state that feels like a small town. Everyone knows everyone else, especially in the local/state governments. I don't think that alone could sink her, but hailing her as a reformed while the state dumps money into an ethics investigation is kind of funny. Though John McCain is hailed as a reformer and yet was one of the Keating Five. Wacky.

fremo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:30:19 -0600

Danke. I saw it mentioned in the AP blurb but wanted the specifics.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:00:54 -0600

Fremo: Here it is http://www.adn.com/politics/story/468174.html

fremo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:56:48 -0600

Albany, can you give a link for the ethics probe? I haven't been able to bring anything up - thx.

matilda

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:38:13 -0600

Dopplerd: Good points and intentions, though I offer at least one thing to think about: Most wars are financed, with borrowing rather than direct taxation (if that is the right term) being used to cover costs. I am not sure you can devise a system that would present, in simple and accurate ways, that reality to the average taxpayer. I am pretty much a fiscal conservative--at least in an old-fashioned GOP sense--so I support the idea, but I am unsure how to pull it off. I agree, though, that we need much more transparency on pork/earmarks, and more responsibility on such spending. I think a step in the right direction is a national infrastructure bank--something I like about Obama, in that he has the general idea--in which transportation projects are looked at in a more objective, national/regional focus, rather than a way to reward specific groups of supporters. Any links/guidance to more information about the "floating" tax rate, the idea you offered? I would love to learn more.

dopplerd

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:29:43 -0600

Matilda: My main attraction to a floating tax rate is the fact that it would bring pork barreling into very sharp focus for voters. Our elected officials would need to defend expenditures to the electorate in a very immediate way. The bridges to nowhere (and wars for occupation) would look very different when there is a tangible hit to the bottom line.

matilda

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:16:44 -0600

Dopple: All decent points worthy of debate. I was just reacting to the sophomoric brand of socialism advanced by some here. And there is no way we are going back to mid-20th century tax rates on the rich in the USA, so just get over it. And thank you for pointing out the danger of the debt, which is the main crisis this country faces right now--yes, even more than energy or the two wars--and one not talked about enough in the current campaign. Empires have fallen under the burden of their debts; we could, too. I tend to agree with much of what Buffet says regarding taxes, though I am not yet sold on a flat tax, though I can be persuaded. I am not sure I want a "floating" tax rate based on the federal budget, though I don't have enough details about how this rate would react and related to multi-year budget projections, and how that would tie the hand of complicated spending programs.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:13:09 -0600

Albany, the abortion stance aside, she's kicked a ton of corruption out of the local government in Alaska. 80% approval rating in the state. Actually, she's currently under investigation for ethics violations. Reformer? No. A non-partisan look at Palin, Take a look at campaign money's take on her. Her quote about a "mutually beneficial relationship" with Big Oil is lovely. http://www.campaignmoney.org/pressroom/2008/08/29/mccain-palin-pick @ Jimbo I know I use words that you think sound funny. Too many syllables make you feel all confused and it's natural to get the giggles. Just trying sounding the words out, clapping as you go, and you'll be a big reader someday real soon! YAY!

dopplerd

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:04:44 -0600

Matilda: Your philosophy of why the rich should keep as much (on a percent basis) as the middle class ignores the facts: 1. If you are rich (and lets use McCains definition) making 5M a year you will buy pretty much what ever you want, regardless of a reasonable tax burden. Last time I checked our economy is largely based on broad market consumer spending, not on Bentley and house-in-the-Hamptons production. 2. If you are rich you likely got there two ways: inheritance or taking advantage of the marketplace. The marketplace exists because of national security, roads, telecommunications, regulated trading markets, safe bank and lending practices, etc. These things cost money and are provided by the government. If you became wealthy by taking advantage of the marketplace you should bear more of the cost (on a percentage basis) of building and maintaining that marketplace. 3. Warren Buffet thinks his taxes are to low. He also thinks the estate tax is a good thing. FYI Matilda, Warren Buffet is rich. To me the fairest tax structure is a stepped rate flat tax. Everyone pays a rate for only the amount of money they earn in each tax bracket. Your first $10,000 is tax free, $10,001-30,000 is %15, $30,001-100,000 is %20 and on. Also tax rates should be based on the federal budget. Whatever amount Congress needs is charged to the public. No more passing the buck through increasing the national debt!

fremo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:35:04 -0600

I guess I should also say that I don't know a ton about her...but what I've researched (I've done my own little vetting process for all of the candidates) gave me what I turned up. I think beauty pageants are dumb.

fremo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:27:26 -0600

Albany, the abortion stance aside, she's kicked a ton of corruption out of the local government in Alaska. 80% approval rating in the state. I'm not a fan of hunting, and if you want to nitpick, Obama is in the pocket of big Health Care. Biden voted for the war. Nobody's clean that's made it this far.

jimbo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:23:54 -0600

Radically pro-life I got a laugh out of this one....almost as much as the common bloody sense remark earlier....which fell short of my laugh over the oxymoron that was income redistribution

Albanyparkour

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:56:18 -0600

Palin as VP choice was a decent move, and she's got a solid rep. Again, voices from the parallel universe. -She's been governor for 2 year. -Radically pro-life (may play well with some, but undercuts her with the Hillary supporters) -NRA member and life-long hunter (See above) -In big oil's pocket -From Alaska (which ranks with Illinois for corruption and political fuckery) -Terrible public speaker -Tried to get her brother-in-law fired from a state job and ended firing a state official who refused to play hatchet man -Former Beauty queen (Prized for their intellect) Yay, she has female genitalia. Hillary Clinton had a vagina and experience. Palin has the former. This is pandering at it's worst by Old Man John. Biden will set fire to this sock-puppet.

matilda

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:54:19 -0600

The rich in this country should pay more, they have more. That's not just income redistribution, it's common bloody sense. Hope you are never rich, or even merely well-off, as most people change their tunes as they move up the ladder, which is the downfall of communistic thinking. Glad to see you have appointed yourself God of Income and Work, deciding what jobs are more challenging, and who deserves the most money. Good luck with that. And your reasoning--such as it is--is more about income redistribution than bloody common sense. Yeah, I think a reworking of the tax code is in order to give more relief to the middle class, but, dear god, your view is so simplistic and childish that I almost want to send you a Che poster for your dorm room. Seriously, a 50% tax rate? Yeah, we've done that before--WWII era, the immediate post-war period--but that isn't going to happen again, I think, because there is too much political resistance to this idea that has built up over the past 30 to 40 years. But hey, keep thinking you are marching with Mao through the hills of China, and everything will be OK. Much better than dealing with reality, I guess. Am I the only one who found the speech boring as all hell, soaked with cliche and intelligence-insulting metaphor? Yeah, the guy speaks well, and it was nice--no, encouraging---to call on this country to do better than it has been doing over the last 8 years. But I found myself thinking Bill Clinton gave a much better speech earlier in the week.

chiefeditor

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:48:14 -0600

For those who want to put sounds to the updates, MP3 highlights are up here.

fremo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:46:34 -0600

I think the last person that will be associated with a McCain Administration would be Rummy. I haven't decided who I am voting for yet, and I am against the Iraq War and Occupation - but at least McCain was constantly calling Rumsfield out for shoddy planning and prep. "I think McCain would look great with a goatee." You know who looks just like McCain? The guy that plays Tigh on Battlestar Galatica. Michael Hogan is his name, I think. He even sounds like him. McCain a Cylon? Palin as VP choice was a decent move, and she's got a solid rep. We'll have to see how it plays out. The Biden/Palin debate is going to be ugly.

PhotoshopAbuser

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:40:20 -0600

Holy Moley Jenny! This could get good. He snaps at her during a Monday briefing and she knocks his ass out. Rumsfeld holds a press conference stating that he is in charge....

jennyblur

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:34:41 -0600

I can't wait until McCain snaps and calls his new VP a "cunt" http://wonkette.com/376849/mccain-called-his-wife-c-word

Prescott Carlson

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:34:16 -0600

References to the Kennedy/Nixon debates will be all over the place soon but it is a very similar situation. And despite that disaster Nixon carried more states and just barely lost the popular vote. I think the more of this "Obama's going to mop the floor with McCain" attitude that's bantered about, the more complacency that's going to set in on voting day. There's still a tough fight ahead, and every vote is going to matter. Do people really think that 9% is "undecided" on which candidate to pick? They're trying to decide whether or not to vote at all, and if they think the outcome is a forgone conclusion they will just stay home.

salaboutme

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:33:53 -0600

"8:58 ML: I...eat cold pizza and sleep on the floor with astonishing regularity." uhm.... me and dawn said the same thing. at the same time.

Marcus Gilmer

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:31:39 -0600

Count, our apologies. Your refund check is in the mail.

whymustiregister

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:31:08 -0600

goatees would be awesome. But seriously, if you think the GOP isn't going to pounce on any tax increase as "the largest in history" you are nuts. They are going to act like the tax pain is affecting middle class people when most of the pain will fall well above that. It worked in 1994. It will work again. To leave spin for a sec and focus on the issues: High taxes do discourage investment. If you make 500K and have to give half of it to the govt, you won't make 500K. You will make 400K by putting your money in a less profitable tax shelter but keep 300K of it. So people don't bother opening businesses or expanding, and overall growth falls. From recent interviews, [though they might by bs and spin], Obama seems to grasp that rates over 35% are counterproductive--they prevent investment and thus return less taxes than lower rates on a larger whole. Do figure on a return to 1990s taxes on the rich, which will be spun as draconian acts of power mad coastal elites, bent on forcing gay whales and well...you get it. Combine that with a guy who has so little experience at a national level and who has only run one election outside of his gerrymandered district of liberal urban whites and working class blacks, and I wonder how he will deal.

PhotoshopAbuser

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:14:35 -0600

I for one can't wait to see McCain snap in one of these debates. That will be a classic moment. While reports have it that Obama isn't that great of a debator, he comes off as more personable. References to the Kennedy/Nixon debates will be all over the place soon but it is a very similar situation. I'm not sure America is ready for HIDEF debates though, and McCains camp has to be more than a little nervous about the whole thing.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:09:16 -0600

That, and jacking up taxes on people who make 250-2M a year. Which is fine by me, and the hundreds of millions of other Americans in this country who don't make that much. The rich in this country should pay more, they have more. That's not just income redistribution, it's common bloody sense. Oversimplifying, but not by much: If you make 500,000 and get get taxed at even 50% you still have 250,000 to spend. The careers that pay that much are often (not always) not as physically demanding as laborers, who have higher health care costs as a result. Those jobs often come with health care coverage. Simple fact, if you're making that much money, you're doing pretty damn well for yourself. Paying more taxes to a responsible government isn't a problem for me. Right now I'm funding two failed wars and bail-outs for housing speculators. If you told me my money was going to rebuild national infrastructure, advance scientific research and actually secure our nation against threats and not just engage in security kabuki theater, then I'm happy to hand it over. His tax increase on millionaires will be rolled back in 2013 by President Crist (or whoever) and the Republican majority that retook the House in 2010 on the slogan "repeal the largest tax increase in history." -- a blatant piece of exaggeration but the same thing they used on Clinton in 1994. And it worked. In this alternate world of yours does everyone have goatees like the mirror universe on Star Trek. I think McCain would look great with a goatee.

jennyblur

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:05:04 -0600

I tend to agree that governors make better Presidents because it is like they are transitioning from a micro to macro level. We haven't had a President come from the Senate in 50 years...something about the tradition and nuance of the coalition and political one-upsmanship I think makes it more difficult. But fuck lack of experience. Bill Clinton was a two term governor of Arkansas. Hillary Clinton has had ONE elected office in her political career. Debates between Obama and McCain are going to be like Nixon/Kennedy all over again, only in HIDEF I think we can all agree that Obama raised the bar last night.

Count Fantismo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:01:18 -0600

Gee thanks for... absolutely nothing. wow. that was quite terrible. I propose a petition to end ALL live blogging. just terrible...

PhotoshopAbuser

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:59:23 -0600

Lack of experience I guess that might be a good argument if Obama was running against an ex president. In fact, he is running against a man that has as much experience at being president as he does. I think McCain does need a little more experience in the way he observes things. I think back to the time he walked through an Iraqi market with a brigade of ground troops and a few helicopters to cover his ass. His assesment? Everything looks good here! wtf?? If anything, this upcoming few months will be entertaining. Obama will keep up the "Change" theme and the republicans will ramp up the attacks. I can see it now: "Recent reports reveal that Senator Obama always puts his left shoe on first. I ask you America, is a man that behaves this way ready to lead our country in this time of war?"

Chuck Sudo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:56:00 -0600

The most effective presidents tend to be former governors. Except for half-witted fortunate sons from Texas. With his many references to the Clinton legacy last night, I suspect that Obama has already studied Bill's use of executive fiat at length and will be willing to use it when necessary. Moreoever, the GOP should be worried. For weeks they've tried to cast Obama as an "elitist" and "celebrity" who's "out of touch" with everyday Americans (the pot surely calling the kettle black there). And Obama just kept letting them fire away. Last night's speech was the equivalent of Ali's rope-a-dope. He hit back and hit back hard. It's been a signature of the Obama campaign from the moment he announced his candidacy. They've never wavered from their main objectives and the implementation of their strategy. It's quite impressive.

Ingrid

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:52:58 -0600

I did not watch more than a few minutes of the DNC. But even when I just catch gleanings of Obama speaking it gives me goose bumps. However...I have never been one to give two wits about speeches, even when they're oratory gold. That's why I don't watch State of The Union Addresses, or pretty much any politician speeches (especially McCain, watching and listening to that guy makes my eyes and ears bleed). All I care about is what they do in the end. Just DO something. Change will be good. Hope is always good. Don't just talk about it though. Words can be beautiful, but we need action and hard work from you Obama.

whymustiregister

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:41:23 -0600

Sure, he is charismatic, but he has never run anything larger than a law school seminar. This guy is charming, but way, way out of his league. If he had been white, he would have been laughed out of the primaries as a poseur and a lightweight. John Edwards was similarly charming and inexperienced and he was lucky to get a veep nomination last time. The most effective presidents tend to be former governors: they know how to deal with all three branches of government. When Clinton was locked out of getting legislation passed by GOP majorities, he was masterful in his use of the power of executive fiat to accomplish what he wanted to do. Obama, by contrast, has never done anything but carry water for whatever politicians he used to get nominated to the next office. Go back and read the New Yorker with the "Barak Osama" cover. That cover flap obscured the best portrait of the man to date. I suspect he will win, then flounder around for a couple of years accomplishing little except looking good and giving nice speeches that make urban liberals and Europeans all tingly. That, and jacking up taxes on people who make 250-2M a year. His tax increase on millionaires will be rolled back in 2013 by President Crist (or whoever) and the Republican majority that retook the House in 2010 on the slogan "repeal the largest tax increase in history." -- a blatant piece of exaggeration but the same thing they used on Clinton in 1994. And it worked.

Chuck Sudo

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:35:46 -0600

He also showed that a Democrat can end a rousing speech with some bad country music. Brooks and Dunn give me the douche chills.

ophmarketing

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:15:56 -0600

What a powerful and moving speech. Wow. It's not often that hearing someone else talk can actually make me more proud of my country, but that's exactly what happened last night while I was watching Obama speak. If there's one person who can energize this nation to turn itself around after the disasters of last eight years, it's him. And you know, I'm really tired of the "lack of experience" line that gets thrown around in referring to Obama. He's held a publicly-elected office for close to twelve years now--eight years as a state Senator and four years as a US Senator--not to mention decades as a respected community leader and professor of Constitutional law at one of the county's most prestigious universities. He's inspiring, gracious, eloquent, and forward thinking. Isn't that precisely what a leader SHOULD be?

ljpljpljp

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:04:02 -0600

In 2004, I spoke with a member of Durbin's staff who was so dumb, she thought that Medicare managed care organizations are regulated by the State. She was unaware of the function of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I don't even know for certain if she knew of its existance. I agree with Chris. Obama has been doing pretty much nothing other than making speeches and looking and sounding good for the past four years or so. If he wins, it will be interesting to see how he contends with finally having to govern.

Chris_60614

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:54:35 -0600

Not a big fan of McCain here, but after watching last night I get the feeling that Obama is a cross between Hootie & The Blowfish and the Tooth Fairy. Let me explain. The last time a bunch of affluent college age kids told the rest of us that something was so good without the substance to back it up......"Just let her cry...." Im not saying he can't do the job. But seriously, does the resume match the hype? Second, I can only imagine all those long faces at the Armitage stop when reality hits and Obama has to be what he is: A Politician. Rev. Wright and friends could probably relate, having the "What do you mean the tooth fairy aint real," after having been dumped for political expediency. Think of the Clintons, Is Washington they way it is b/c of people like the Clintons, or are they the way they are b/c of Washington? It will hit Obama soon enough. He is going to have to stop looking off into the sunset with that "who farted?" look, and start governing at some point. Welcome back to planet Earth.

smussy

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:37:54 -0600

"patriotism has no party" and "change doesn't come *from* washington, it comes TO washington" and "this election has never been about ME, it's been about *you.*" yes, yes, yes. so much good stuff in there tonight. ENOUGH! and MLK had a dream, so obama is reminding us of the american promise. oh, this is a good time to be an american. it is always darkest before the dawn.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:30:34 -0600

McCain wanted townhalls because those tend to favor right-wing pithiness ("Terrorism bad!, Jobs good! and not structured answers or nuanced questions. Under the hot lights McCain is going to look like some kind of evil ghost who wants to haunt the White House for the next 4 years. Look at his campaign ads, he's always coming out of the shadows at you. John McCain is spooky. It was a wonderful speech, and I like Obama when he's sharp and pointed. Kerry and Gore took tried to be above it all and ended up letting the right control the conversation. There were some excellent "Daddy Spank" moments in there. Good on him. And dear god does that man have a fine and lovely looking family. They feel more human and real than any political family I've ever seen.

mh95149

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:23:21 -0600

the video VO did sound like David Strathairn

Albanyparkour

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:14:23 -0600

fremo

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:28:36 -0600

The key now is the debates. I was actually surprised that he wouldn't take McCain on in the Town Halls, but truth be told he doesn't debate well. Going back to when he was running for Senate, he and that goofball had something like 4 debates, and in the last one Obama was completely flummoxed. If things don't get better economically in the next few months (the last quarter there was surprising growth, so we'll see) or if there is a reversal of the progress in Iraq, then Obama will likely win. Otherwise...I still think its McCain's to lose. Energy and making the case about oil drilling will be the key.