Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My posts show that I am a liberal; and support Hillary. I'm sure some will unfortunately consider this post somewhat offensive. My purpose, however, is to express my concern that the DN Convention has, perhaps, failed to appreciate an issue that Trump has recognized and/or benefitted from:
The surprising closeness of the polls seems to be frequently explained or include the observation that Trump is scoring very well among white middle or lower class (WMLC) voters. The DN convention seems to be weighted on emphasizing black, Hispanic, Muslim and other non-white or religious and ethnic interests, speakers, issues and entertainers. I haven't counted or otherwise attempted any statistical analysis or evaluation. It doesn't affect my vote or philosophy, but then I don't identify with those apparently sizeable numbers of WMLC voters who seemingly find the allure of Trump's message.
The Democrats are quick to point out that a significant part of Trump's message is not-so-subtley racist and appealing to prejudices in its many forms. I hope that Hillary and her folks don't equate "progressivism" with throwing WASPs and WMLCs off the train. Ethnic and minority voters are an important and large block, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. If Trump is as close as many polls show and he is losing the ethnic and minority voters, then let's not forfeit the WMLCs by forgetting that they are large in number and deserving of as much consideration.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other re Maddow. Her calls are about 50/50, i.e., she gets about half of them right.
She's an egghead policy wonk, that's not always a bad thing. But she doesn't 'get' that many people don't respond to policy/issue speeches, they love anecdotes and glimpses of personality and like anything that sheds light on what makes a candidate tick. Bill effectively used anecdotes to illustrate what makes HRC tick.
It was one of his better speeches. It wasn't a love story and wasn't intended to be. His purpose was to spotlight HRC's decades of public service and advocacy for children, minorities, and the poor, and about how that's been her life's mission. He succeeded quite well in that. He threw in just enough Hillary-as-mom stuff, very believable and relatable. It was actually a classic 'first spouse' speech in that regard.
Media has widely reported that he went off-teleprompter for the last several minutes. They could see that the teleprompter had stopped. Presumably he used it to make sure he got in all the biographical points he wanted, then once that was done he went to the strong off-the-cuff finish. Bill is one of very few who can skillfully transition between script and ad-lib; it's almost impossible for listener/viewers to discern which is which.
Hearing all the disrespectful comments about Bill is really low, he's our former president and even if you don't like him on a personal level attacking him shows no respect. I thought he did alright with his speech.
You need to be respectable to be respected. People have different opinions from yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boosane
And then for Hillary to promote DWS after being forced to resign after being caught influencing and slanting the race?!?
She is sending a defiant message: I don't give a damn what the public thinks. Just like when she was asked about the FBI investigation and Wall st. speeches, she laughs and just said, no, I'm not the least worried; I will not be indicted; I'm not going to disclose my speech transcripts.
She can be so defiant now, can you imagine what she will be like if she has the supreme power?
From the comments I've read thus far BC came across as a bit creepy when telling the story about "seeing a girl."
Poor BC. He was supposed to be Hillary's trump card so to speak. Her ace in the hole.
The man who would remind us of better days. Vote for Hillary and we get Bill back!
It's clear you haven't watched the speech. There was nothing remotely "creepy" about it. He was clear that it wasn't about any past "better days"; he explicitly said several times that times have changed and we must move on. He was forceful in stating that Hillary's the best candidate for today.
As far as "get Bill back", quite the contrary - this speech was all about her. If anything, it left viewers with the impression that Bill would be content picking out the White House china and playing with his grandchildren while she runs the country.
^^^^ It's clear you haven't watched the speech. There was nothing remotely "creepy" about it. He was quite clear that it wasn't about any past "better days"; he explicitly said several times that times have changed and we must move on. He was quite forceful in stating that Hillary's the best candidate for today.
As far as "get Bill back", quite the contrary - this speech was all about her. If anything, it left viewers with the impression that Bill would be content picking out the White House china and playing with his grandchildren while she runs the country.
I got the same feeling from it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
