Obama’s Biden Speech

-

obama biden twn selection.jpg
Part of the social contract with both the Obama and McCain media teams is that we respect the embargo times on speeches and material they send our way.
But damn, this is hurting me today. I’ve just read Obama’s speech about Joe Biden, the many adversities he’s overcome, his accomplishments, details about his wife Jill and the Biden family.
It’s a terrific speech. Ted Sorensen’s former right hand aide, Adam Frankel, is a close Obama speechwriter, and I sense his hand in this. But this is also real Obama and real Joe Biden — and it pains me not to be able to share it until he delivers it.
(I just learned that this excellent speech was “all Ben Rhodes” — who is a great writer as well — and who has been a blogger at “Across the Aisle“, the blog of Partnership for a Secure America.)
But that will happen soon.
— Steve Clemons
Update: Here is the entire speech, a great speech about Joe Biden that says a great deal not only about Biden but also about Obama.

Comments

60 comments on “Obama’s Biden Speech

  1. Paul Norheim says:

    Questions,
    I ALWAYS just copy my post before submitting (takes one
    second), and if I get a new captcha, I paste it.
    You occasionally write some long posts, and I really
    recommend it.
    (Oh yeah, I`ve lost some unbelievably brilliant and astonishing
    posts myself, comments with that unmistakable touch of genius,
    hehehe. Unfortunately, those that actually get through the
    captcha are mediocre compared to those no one have read…)
    Re “experience”: Perhaps Obama should have had ten more
    years of that. And then perhaps not… In any case, the
    experience-argument is getting more and more bizarre, when
    you witness what his experienced opponent is capable of saying
    – even in his lucid moments.
    Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel went with Obama on his trip to the
    Middle East. He picked Biden as his VP, and it would not
    surprise me if he asks Hagel to become secretary of state
    (instead of VP, since Hagel`s opinions on domestic issues often
    run contrary to Obama`s). In that case, there will be plenty of
    experience on foreign affairs – perhaps even too much of it.
    This really should be a non-issue.

    Reply

  2. questions says:

    Thanks for the support Paul!! Actually, I had a great response to him earlier on a different computer, but the captcha thing didn’t work the way I’m used to, so I lost it. Oh well. (Usually, the browser back button refreshes the captcha thing and so I just use the new one. I never save my postings. This time, I had to refresh the page to get a new captcha, and I lost the whole witty, brilliant, devasting post. I promise it was THIS big, but it got away!!)
    Anyway, you’re right about “the voters” thing. MarkL really has no argument for his/her non-position. Lucky me, I get “facile clown” likely because I corrected MarkL on the U of C references. People who ignore facts don’t like having their bluff called, I’m guessing.
    And of course, I’m not “insulting people who don’t ‘get it'”, I’m just asking for opposition to be based on policy, not on ill-defined notions.
    I think it was a Nation columnist a few issues ago who talked about the “experience” thing in terms of what an African-American had to prove compared to what a white guy has to prove. It’s a thought that is worth entertaining. How much better does Obama have to be than, say, a governor of Georgia or a governor of Arkansas?
    Since POA hasn’t called me anything nasty in a while, I’m feeling more at home after this!!

    Reply

  3. Paul Norheim says:

    Questions,
    in my exchange with MarkL on the thread above, he was polite,
    and didn`t call me a clown. But his arguing methods were
    similar.
    In one post he said that McCain “probably is more ready on
    national security issues”. When I replied that he seemed to be
    “ready” the same way Cheney, Perle and other war mongers
    were ready, MarkL said:
    “Your fear of what McCain will do if elected is not shared by
    most Americans. This is a statement of fact, not a value
    judgment.”
    The same with Obama and “experience”. In MarkL`s opinion,
    Obama lacks experience. And when you disagree, he says
    you`re a facile clown, since you`re not able to convince “the
    voters”.
    This implies that you`re right when “the voters” agree with you
    and make your opinion heavy and massive like a “fact”.
    Conversely you`re a moron when the voters disagree with you.
    Brilliant!
    You`re the clown here, MarkL. And you are not even funny.

    Reply

  4. MarkL says:

    Questions,
    DUH it’s subjective.
    What kind of moron thinks the question of qualifications is NOT subjective.
    It’s even more so, given the scant record of Obama. When people have to go back to Lincoln to find a comparably unqualified (on paper) candidate, you know there’s a problem.
    How do his qualifications compare to those of Democratic candidates for the last 50 years?
    They are extremely weak, and you and I and every voter who’s been around knows it.
    You keep on mentioning his years in the IL legislature, but you fail to mention that he was not a distinguished legislator. The same is true in the Senate.
    I’ll answer your question anyway: I think Obama’s part time experience in the IL legislature counts as qualification for state executive office or Senator, but not for the Presidency.
    His 3 years in the Senate just isn’t enough; again—obviously—in my opinion.
    What facile clowns like you don’t get is that you can come up with all the arguments you like that show Obama is experienced enough, but those arguments don’t convince the voters.
    There are lot of people I know who have followed politics for decades who think Obama is an awful choice, mainly because of his lack of qualifications. Their opinions are subjective too, but their votes are not.
    Insulting people who don’t “get it” won’t win any converts to the “hope and change” train.
    I know you’re going to come away from this exchange even more firmly convinced that I’m just FOS and you’re right, but that’s pure solipsism on your part.
    Voters aren’t seeing the fantastic candidate you see.

    Reply

  5. questions says:

    MarkL,
    Congragulations! You are almost at the point of admitting the completely subjective nature of your position!!! You have ALMOST stopped citing false data to back your point up, and you’re down to citing one commentator, and “appears to stand for nothing” and “thin”.
    Now you just need to work on what level of “experience” is necessary for being pres. Why don’t you try writing up a sample resume?
    How many years of Senate compromising?
    How many years of representing a state and therefore seeming to have been bought by industry?
    How many years of being governor and thus having “no foreign policy experience” or seeming to have been bought by industry?
    How much time in the cabinet and therefore having either no foreign policy or domestic policy experience or having had to compromise deeply because you’re serving the president, not your own career?
    See how the game is played? There’s always room to bash the candidate on the resume issue!
    So anyway, go ahead and give your own criterion/criteria for the position of POTUS. We’re all waiting!!

    Reply

  6. MarkL says:

    Sheesh,
    You have your opinion. I have mine. I have seen and read (especially the latter) lots of Obama’s words. He was the always the vaguest of the three main Dem. candidates on policy details.
    Paul Lukasiak put it well yesterday, commenting over at TalkLeft. He said that Obama is good at sounding thoughtful, which is not the same thing as sounding intelligent, at all!
    He doesn’t impress me, excite me or interest me.
    Those reactions from me are not unusual for a politician, needless to say! What I really don’t like about him is that he appears to stand for nothing. He sells out the principles that used to be central to Democrats, and none of his supporters mind.
    He has a very thin record of political accomplishment: nothing of note in IL (that was his own work), and a couple of good bills in the US Senate.
    You respect him, I don’t.
    At least respect that I have actually taken the time to examine Obama’s positions and words, and come to my own conclusions. I assume you have done the same.
    Is he intelligent? Sure. Does he stand out for that quality, among national elected officials? I don’t think so.

    Reply

  7. sheesh says:

    MarkL,
    You would be well served to use the great power of these internets to actually learn about Obama. There’s much more out there than the transcripts of his speeches. You need to listen to the countless interviews that he gave in Iowa and New Hampshire, many of which are archived online by the respective radio and TV stations in those states. It’s not hard. Listen to him answer questions at length and then, if you are intellectually honest, try to say that you, “see nothing in the least impressive about his intellect.”
    Sheesh.

    Reply

  8. Kathleen says:

    POA…I used to think WigWag was an Obama supporter using reverse psychology to get you to defend BO….it’s actually BO supporters who turned me into a Hillary for Veep supporter….but I haven’t been an obedient partisan for years now, so that was short-lived… you can tell it’s not a good beach day by how long I’ve been here today…

    Reply

  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Where’s Den Valdron?”
    LOL!!! He was corresponding with Ticia, over @..
    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/blog/ticia
    I don’t know if he still is. I miss the input of Ticia and Valdron, to be honest. Besides, Ticia kept me in line with the “i before e” stuff.
    Valdron’s talent for insult was unequalled, and coupled with his astute observations of current events, motivations, and underlying currents, he was truly an asset to this forum. Of course, I am sure WigWag would disagree, after the thorough reaming he recieved from Den, while trolling in one of his former personnas.

    Reply

  10. questions says:

    MarkL, below is your claim.
    Obama is the only President of the Law Review who did not publish anything during his tenure.
    In fact, publishing unsigned pieces seems to be part of the job and Obama did just that. So I’m guessing that you lied. You could have said that he had published no signed pieces. You could have tossed in a link to the claim that no one else in the history of the Law Review has failed to publish a SIGNED piece. But you didn’t do that. So that’s kind of a problem.
    As I said, hate on him all you want. But do it for a reason. There are plenty of policy reasons to want something different. But the Law Review thing just doesn’t rise to the occasion.
    His status as a prof at the U of C Law School also doesn’t rise to the occasion, but I have seen endless references to this claim in comment sections of newspapers across the country. Perhaps THAT’S your source?
    Also, please note that tenure-track positions are entry level positions in academia. Before MASSIVE budget cuts across the country, just about all UNPUBLISHED junior, just out of grad school academics had a tenure track positions. Sadly, now there are a lot of one- and multi-year positions with high teaching loads and no chance of tenure. There are grad students who publish and so start their first jobs with publications. But it is still quite possible to land tenure track jobs AT TOP SCHOOLS with a promising unpublished dissertation, a great letter from an advisor, a great screening interview and an on campus interview. Why, some people get tenure track jobs before their dissertations are even done.
    And on the value of teaching — it utterly depends on the institution. There are schools that won’t hire people with long c.v.s because they want TEACHERS. There are schools that won’t hire without either lots of publications or the promise of lots of publications. Kind of depends.
    Again, get some facts…..

    Reply

  11. rich says:

    POA,
    Yep. That’s the MarkL and wigwag MO. Smear. Lie. Run away and ignore. Deride but evade.
    Not really worth my time, but occasionally the extensive veil of lies requires a modest corrective. Call me a zealot for the truth, but the rid-ick-u-losity of the abuse just cries out for a prophet, a muckraker, a Rhetorial Sheriff. Like I said, not worth my time.
    Spunkmeyer had it right, though, it’s getting hilarious. Someone’s bent on poisoning the well here. Especially funny are the polls. Like the poll numbers are surprising or prove anything. Oy.
    If polls were the road to victory or had sufficient predictive value to scare the villagers, I guess they’d all hire Mark Penn, right? But polls can never equate to a first-class qualitative political sensibility, which is why Barack Obama will be our next President.
    Where’s Den Valdron?

    Reply

  12. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Cite one piece of evidence proving the rules were changed or that this was unusual”
    You gotta be kidding. That was one of Mark’s “lies on the run”. Theres no fuckin’ way he will acknowledge your request, or provide substantiation. Just like WigWag’s unsubstantiated assertion, (lie), that “women voters are abandoning Obama in droves”.
    Look, just get used to it. If MarkL or Wigwag find themselves on the losing side of a debate, they’ll simply start lying to buttress their position.

    Reply

  13. MarKL says:

    Questions,
    Actually I found many references to that article.
    Nevertheless, it has no bearing on the claim I made, since it was an unsigned piece.

    Reply

  14. questions says:

    MarkL, your lack of fact checking gets a bit much. Here’s a Politico link about Obama’s unsigned Harvard Law Review piece that argues that a fetus can’t sue its mother for neglect. Thank goodness most courts agree! Could you imagine being sued if you went out on an icy night and fell and injured your fetus and got sued for going out? Or if you forgot to take your vitamin and got sued?….
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
    A brief passage:
    But an unsigned — and previously unattributed — 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.
    Please, hate on him all you want, but DO IT FOR A GOOD REASON. Don’t just make up crap. Thanks!!!
    Oh, it took me all of 2 minutes to find this.

    Reply

  15. Markl says:

    Oops,
    Had to copy my reply because the captcha wasn’t working, then put it in the next article.
    Your line about universities valuing great teachers is s hoot, btw.
    Thanks for the laugh.

    Reply

  16. rich says:

    Link, please
    Cite one piece of evidence proving the rules were changed or that this was unusual. We’ve cited sources noting the function of the Law Review President, of U of Chicago Law School policy.
    You’re confusing tenure, with a tenure-track position. BIG difference. Had Sen. Obama accepted those offers, he would THEN have been required to research and publish extensively before being granted tenure. Obviously they saw great potential in him both as a teacher and as a scholar, capable of publishing, had Obama wanted to.
    So, I don’t see how you have a point. Had Obama wanted to, he could have taken that tenure-track slot and started publishing, or vice versa, been publishing in anticipation of that offer. You say “those who only lecture can and do publish, if they desire a tenured job.” Obama obviously didn’t want to. So, you’re not differentiating yourself from my position. It may be breaking news, but in the real world teaching is valued over research by students, families, and any academic dean that knows what the hell they’re doing. It’s about values; universities have to grab great teachers when they find them b/c not every brilliant mind or great researcher is also a quality teacher. Common problem.
    “Finally,” Voters will judge Senator Obama on his abilities. The polls mean precious little to the average voter. You may not like our merit-based system, but most voters are not fools, and faced with a choice between a grumpy old hothead who’s been part of the problem for 35 years and a likable young guy who’s smart and tells it like it is, they’ll pick Obama without much hesitation.
    Even Republican die-hards who never cross over are backing Obama—Hagel, Chafee, others. Obama’s proven to have appeal, contrary to current mythology, with blue-collar, white voters and across party lines—as long as they have a chance to interact with him. Polls don’t matter.
    Worse though, John McCain, far from having an impact on Bush/Cheney’s platform, counts as his major accomplishment signing onto that radical rightist agenda. That’s the extent of his influence. EVen if this is a close race, McCain’s been forced to run to the right, and cling to Bush/Cheney’s record. Obama’s been running to the middle and to common sense; we could use a little of that.
    And as McCain, Bush, and Maliki all adopted Senator Obama’s Iraq policy position on withdrawal, it’s become more clear who had it right. That won’t be lost on red-state voters or military families or folks living paycheck to paycheck.
    MarkL, you write “You’re giving a lot of blather about nothing much.” Am I? You raised Senator Obama’s record as a law professor (which received very high marks); you beat on that as if it was going somewhere. Senator Obama’s 11 years as an elected official surpasses Abe Lincoln’s experience AND Hillary Clinton’s years in office. If you are going to beat a drum, you’re going to have to back it up and not pretend all your noise is the other guy’s ‘blather’.
    The polls are useless. Trying to demoralize the opposition is a waste: people like a winner, and only one candidate has legitimate momentum.

    Reply

  17. MarKL says:

    Rich,
    Obama is the only President of the Law Review who did not publish anything during his tenure. The rules were changed after he left because of his failure.
    You’re giving a lot of blather about nothing much.
    Yes, Obama was qualified to teach law; no, I don’t believe he would have gotten any consideration for a tenure track job, given that he was not publishing.
    Even those who only lecture can and do publish, if they desire a tenured job.
    Finally, you may believe that you have “put a stake” through the experience canard, but that is whistling in the wind. Polls show that voters do not agree with you—they are very worried that Obama lacks the necessary experience.
    Oh, and by the way, Clinton is not in the race anymore

    Reply

  18. rich says:

    Recruiting and editing articles for a journal like the Harvard Law Review doesn’t leave much time for writing and publishing full-fledged scholarly articles.
    Even the job description of the staff is to “compile and edit” articles, which means there’s even less time for the President of the Law Review to play at professor.
    If anyone thinks Obama’s job was to get his own articles published, they know very little about scholarly publishing in general, let alone the work and thought that has to go into structuring and publishing a prestigious law review. Same for other academic fields, only the editors have to get even more deep into the technical weeds. That’s why they have so many on staff.
    Second, NO, teaching faculty with other careers are not required to publish articles, nor, wigwag, do they need to be politically connected.
    >>”Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.”
    It’s common practice in academia for capable, experienced faculties who devote significant time to their main careers NOT to publish.
    That’s for professors aiming for tenure, who do massive research with tenure in mind, and who have the time for it. That’s obviously not what Barack Obama was aiming for:
    “Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
    So why bother to publish? When you can practice your profession?
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260
    >>
    “February 6, 1990
    First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review
    By FOX BUTTERFIELD
    The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School.
    Law reviews, which are edited by students, play a double role at law schools, providing a chance for students to improve their legal research and writing, and at the same time offering judges and scholars a forum for new legal arguments. The Harvard Law Review is generally considered the most widely cited of the student law reviews.
    On his goals in his new post, Mr. Obama said: ”I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I’m fairly opinionated about this. But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.”
    Therefore, Mr. Obama said, he would concentrate on making the review a ”forum for debate,” bringing in new writers and pushing for livelier, more accessible writing.”
    <<
    There’s a whole lotta work involved in recruiting the right scholars and then working with them to shape quality articles.
    http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/barack_obama_harvard_law_review.php
    There are those who publish. There are those that practice.
    Not knowing the difference does not entitle one to mismanage a SwiftBoat meme by lighting torches and heading for the castle door.
    We put a permanent stake through the heart of the ‘experience’ canard a couple dozen posts ago. Eleven years as an elected official is more than Sen. Clinton. But if you’re really looking for accomplishments, I’d say vanquishing the field of Democratic rivals and positioning himself to capture the Oval Office is one helluva triumph. And, ultimately, it’s the only one that matters.

    Reply

  19. Linda says:

    MarkL.
    You may want to believe otherwise, but for the record, these are the facts:
    First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review – New York Times 2/6/90 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FO%2FObama%2C%20Barack
    Also note that the first female elected by her peers to head Harvard Law Review was thirteen years earlier in 1977.
    It’s clear that Obama didn’t want to clerk for federal judges or teach, as he could have followed those paths easily. He was repeatedly offered tenure track positions at University of Chicago Law School and could have had the same offer at any law school in the country.

    Reply

  20. MarkL says:

    P.S.,
    I mentioned his lack of publications because I highly doubt that a tenure track position would be offered at U of C to someone with no publications at all. If there were an official offer, there would be a record. There is no such offer on record.

    Reply

  21. MarkL says:

    Linda, you’re just making things up.
    The job Obama had at the Harvard Law Review ( I don’t remember the exact title) came with an expectation of written output. Obama wrote nothing for the entire year, which was so appalling that an explicit rule was instituting, requiring the editor to write something.
    Anyway, if you are correct (which I doubt), then the job had little significance in the first place.
    I know Obama from what I see of him. His resume is fine—for someone wanting to teach at a law school.
    To be President? What a laugh.

    Reply

  22. Linda says:

    WigWag, MarkL, and others,
    I could have had the last word on this thread or the one above when I turned my computer off at 5 a.m. EDT to go to bed and read what you and others were writing all last evening. I stayed up to watch live Kobe and USA win the basketball gold medal.
    POA sometimes gets it right when he says to ignore you, WigWag. Never argue or try to reason with a gal who is upset/unhappy/angry/confused about what a principled person should do. It doesn’t work in person and surely won’t on a blog. The only thing to do in person is give her a hug, maybe ask to talk with her when she’s less upset, or agree to disagree.
    Everybody here has a right to his/her opinion and to selectively find evidence to support it. So I will set the record straight on a few facts knowing full well that people who already have a low opinion of Obama aren’t going to listen to reason.
    The President of Harvard Law Review usually doesn’t write articles as his job is to manage and negotiate among the 80 who do. The person is elected for their ability to listen to all sides and manage people.
    If one chooses not to be in a tenure-track position and lectures at a law school while holding other jobs, there is no need to write legal articles and not much time. U of Chicago did provide Obama a quiet office where he could write his first book–much better written and more honest than either of the Clintons memoirs.
    Junior legislators which is all Hillary or Obama have ever been don’t get a chance because of seniority rules to write and pass much legislation. Both Clinton and Obama stood out in their limited time in the Senate as well as Obama in his limited time in IL legislature.
    Somehow you both think you know Obama better than people at Harvard Law School, U of Chicago Law School, Democratic Party in IL, and Democratic Party nationally–people who actually interacted with him.
    Obama graduated Harvard Law School magna cum laude, and McCain graduated 849th in a class of 899 at U.S. Naval Academy.
    It also is possible that a woman, like me, would really like to see a woman President someday, but I don’t see any really good candidates around including Hillary. She might have been one if she had followed her head and not her heart and not given up her career to move to AK or who left Bill in 1998. And I really don’t want two-for-the-price-of-one again. It’s too messy and emotional and melodramatic.
    I’d like to see a woman President who makes it on her own and not on her husband’s name and record–somehow African American women come to mind two of them deceased like Barbara Jordan, Stepahnie Tubbs-Jones, or Barbara Lee.
    I’m going to read the newspapers, then a book, and watch the closing ceremonies.

    Reply

  23. rich says:

    Steve,
    Just a quick note.
    Joe Biden is a far better VP pick than most people realize. I’d been lukewarm at first (see below). Wes Clark as VP was driven by the mistaken idea Obama needs to compensate on the military front (& would’ve been seen as overcompensating). What we need in the Executive isn’t military in nature We’ve got the Joint Chiefs, as always, and Obama’s got the judgment and civilian status the Exec demands.
    What we need is a foreign policy pro with deep, existing ties in the diplomatic arena. That’s Joe Biden—others must know this, but a dkos diary recently drove home for me just how deep and strong Biden’s longstanding personal ties abroad really are.
    For many, that’ll be a ‘No duh’ observation. But that feature has not made it into the punditry’s analysis in any meaningful way, with very delimited references to Biden’s tenure on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee falling far short of the point.
    Biden cannot be reasonably viewed as ‘compensating’ for some imagined Obama shortcoming. Barack Obama went out and got the best guy, hands down. Neither Bayh, Clinton nor Kaine have the foreign policy depth or tenure in the Senate.
    Biden’s been kind of a cipher, viewed from afar.
    I’d always been intrigued by the contrast between Bidens’s rep as a quality Senator and his disappointing campaign performances and tepid appearances on MeetthePress, etc. I’d read he’s my kind of Senator, and then kept finding he seemed to pull his punches on those shows, dumb down his message, or never quite come right out and give the knockout blow the country was looking for.
    I kept concluding Biden was maybe too much a creature of D.C. to offer policies or messages the status quo/Establishment would find uncomfortable. But his short-lived campaigns could be explained by the reverse—no establishment support.
    More important, his impressive interpersonal skills don’t translate onto the Presidential campaign trail. Seeing Biden on the stump isn’t the same as seeing him manage his Senate staff or conduct business in an organic, ongoing fashion.
    The electorate will be better able to see the real Joe Biden as VP nominee. His frankness will be refreshing, and his personality and operating style will become more apparent.
    No way does the contrast poorly serve Barack Obama. You want two strong candidates, contrary to the theory that picking weak VPs protects a vulnerable Prznt.
    Joe Biden will say what needs to be said, frankly, so that Obama can speak a little softer and more Presidentially.
    Joe Biden knows the Senate inside and out. Barack Obama will need that expertise, particularly given the Senate’s refusal to challenge Bush, force the issue of witnesses & contempt, and game the filibuster for Reps but against Dems. I have no doubt Obama’s former Senate colleagues will attempt to extort Obama and foil any number of policy corrections. Biden at least will be able to parse legitimate concerns from self-interested or partisan hackery, while attending to institutional matters.
    And if Dick Cheney’s torn a hole in the Office of the Vice President so big you can drive a no-bid un-armored Humvee through it, who better to utilize and repair that hole than Joe Biden?
    Obama will need a beefed-up capacity, run close-to-home, and can’t afford to hand it all off to State, particularly if it’s populated with old-school neocon/’realists’ such as Holbrooke or Albright, who are part of the problem and will offer neither difference or distinction.

    Reply

  24. Rodolphe Rous says:

    I didn’t know this speech of ABE Lincoln. I don’t understand why the US Media haven’t report it yet.

    Reply

  25. dan bloom says:

    So who was the speechwriter for Biden on that ABE speech poetic license misquote? NAME! NAME!
    I have alerted NY Times and NRO and LA TIMES and Chicago Sun Times on this. Maybe Neil Steinberg will report tomorrow?

    Reply

  26. dan bloom says:

    As you know, this Speechwriter’s gaffe misquoting the ABE LINCOLN text is not a big gaffe, but it has never been reported in the US media yet, although I have emailed 25 top reporters about it just now. NEWSDAY to report soon. A history lesson about Honest Abe for today’s young people who maybe never heard of ABE?
    SMILE

    Reply

  27. dan bloom says:

    House Divided — Text of Entire Speech by President Lincoln, 1868
    MONEY QUOTE FROM ABE WAS: “We shall not fail – if we stand firm, we shall not fail.”
    But Joe Biden’s speechwriter’s relayed it a bit differently:
    JOE: INTRO: Well, it’s great to be here! On the steps of the old State House in the land of Lincoln. President Lincoln once instructed us to be sure to put your feet in the right place. Then stand firm. Today, Springfield, I know my feet are in the right place. And I am proud to stand firm for the next president of the United States of America, Barack Obama.
    JOE: END OF HIS SPEECH : “And now it’s time for all of us, as Lincoln said, to put our feet in the right place and to stand firm.”
    Only Lincoln never said it is time to put our feet in the right place. He said: “We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we shall not fail.”
    Speechwriter taking liberties? No biggie! But let the record show:
    BUT ABE NEVER SAID IT EXACTLY THAT WAY……

    Reply

  28. MarkL says:

    Another point about the selection of Biden: I wonder if he won’t get more coverage than Obama, making Obama appear weak in the process.
    Biden is quite entertaining, whether he’s putting his foot in his mouth, or delivering a zinger about the opposition. He’s also quite funny, in distinct contrast to Obama.
    If the race becomes too much about Biden, I think that is bad for Obama, regardless of whether the coverage is good or bad.

    Reply

  29. MarkL says:

    Sheesh,
    No vast and deep knowledge of Obama is possible, for obvious reasons. It’s not up to me to make the case against him. I get my impression of him mostly from transcripts, where he often sounds quite awkward.
    Do you really think the “hope and change” slogan
    is the sign of a brilliant mind?
    Let’s accept that we have differing opinions.
    Mine is honest—I see nothing in the least impressive about his intellect. I do think he has raw political talent; however, he is woefully, dangerously unprepared to be President, IMO.
    McCain is no great shakes either, obviously.

    Reply

  30. WigWag says:

    Questions, as I have said before, I don’t hate Barack Obama. And his status as a law school professor is only of minor interest to me. But the only University of Chicago Law School professors who would be offered tenure without publishing are faculty members who are politically connected. The University of Chicago is one of the best law schools in the country. Their faculty members are incredibly well published; The average Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Law School has a CV that would put Obama’s to shame.
    Obama’s supporters who site his experience at the Law School as a credential for his presidential candidacy are in no position to complain when critics point out correctly that his tenure there was less than distinguished.

    Reply

  31. questions says:

    WigWag, hope the following copy/paste press release helps you — it’s from an NPR site. It’s probably not even “extremely unusual” (your words) for very prominent people to be offered tenured positions at the U of C Law School….
    It’s fine to hate Obama, but please do so for good reasons instead of trumped up reasons.
    Here’s a portion of the posting:
    The university’s law school issued a press release today to clarify Obama’s position. The release says he was a “senior lecturer” but that is considered at the school as being the same as a professor.
    Here is the press release.
    “The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as ‘Senior Lecturer.’ From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/u_of_chicago_says_obama_was_co.html

    Reply

  32. WigWag says:

    Questions, it would be extremely unusual for the University of Chicago Law School to offer tenure or even a tenure track position to a faculty member who never published.
    It is also extremely unusual for the editor of any Law Review, let along the Harvard Law Review, not to publish while in Law School.

    Reply

  33. questions says:

    MarkL,
    Just a little picky thing — on the U of C appointment (note, not UC), Obama’s status was that of a working professional with sufficient credentials to teach. There was no publishing expectation at all because he was in the state house. Lots of professionals hold adjunct teaching positions, and if your professional status is significant, you get to call yourself more than an “adjunct” or a “lecturer”. Obama was given a decent title, and I believe was offered a tenured position that he turned down. Again, no publishing requirement. He did not inflate his credentials on this one. Pick a better argument.
    Will he be pro-business? Well, if he were entirely anti-business, what would that mean? You can’t just destroy the corporations, storm the palaces, redistribute the wealth. When that happens (in post-colonial countries for example), there are usually problems. So if, say, Obama uses tax policy and subsidies to bring insurance more into the affordable universe, perhaps tosses in a dollop of expanded Medicare and Medicaid, regulates away the waiting periods and pre-existing condition limitations, maybe opens the whole system to larger pools across state borders, maybe encourages affinity insurance (unions, local social groups and the like) then maybe we transition to a more humane system. Try storming the barricades a la Clinton and we end up with Harry and Louise Part II: The Vengeance.
    Sounds not half crazy to do the Obama thing.

    Reply

  34. sheesh says:

    MarkL,
    Please enlighten us with specific examples of how Obama is ignorant, arrogant and inexperienced? Don’t use comparisons to straw men or red herrings. Please just share with us your vast and deep knowledge of Barack Obama. Thanks.
    And then please let us know about Obama along the lines of curiosity, mental flexibility, willingness to understand nuance in multifaceted problems, and then tell me whether you think pigheadedness, bluster and brinkmanship are appropriate approaches to a global economy and a multipolar security reality. Or maybe you’re not terrified of undoing the US-built institutional frameworks that have resulted in the past 60 year’s prosperity and peace.
    Of course, we could tell Russia to pound snow, tell China to stuff a panda and chase the Muslim world to the gates of hell, and McCain will still have somewhere between six and ten houses. Lovely being more than $5 million rich, isn’t it.
    Sheesh.

    Reply

  35. MarkL says:

    POA,
    McCain is quite unlike Bush, especially in temperament. The “McSame” label may make people in Cheetopia giddy, but it’s not going to stick, in the real world.
    Whether Obama is similar to Bush or not is more debatable.

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    So, in MarkL’s world, Obama is more like Bush than McCain is. This gets wierder and wierder.
    MarkL, you and WigWag oughta get together, its a match made in Toontown.

    Reply

  37. MarkL says:

    Bill,
    To be clear, I don’t share McCain’s politics at all. However, he does not terrify me the way Obama does, with his Bush-like combination of ignorance, arrogance and inexperience.

    Reply

  38. MarkL says:

    Linda,
    Funny you mention the Harvard Law Review.
    That position is a political plum—not a recognition of academic prowess. Nevertheless, there were tacit expectations that the editor of the Law Review actually publish something.
    After Obama wrote absolutely nothing in his year, that rule was made explicit.
    By the way, he had no scholarly output at UC either, making the suggestion that he was equivalent to a Professor quite preposterous.
    I’m sure he was a competent lecturer.
    About health care: Obama will provide a business friendly non-solution. He was the go-to guy for the insurance industry in IL, and his rhetoric on health care makes clear that he will continue in that role.
    Look, I WISH Obama weren’t so awful.. but he is.

    Reply

  39. Bil says:

    MarkL. “Bush was less qualified (barely) but made up for that with
    great message discpline”.
    Like, I’m a Uniter not a Divider? I’m Against Nation Building? I’m
    against Big Government?
    Whatever. I’m in a red state too MarkL, and I would be a lot more
    excited about Obama if he had gone for a Wesley Clark or a Jim
    Webb but these are the cards we’ve got. I still can’t believe that
    Bush2 beat McCain in 2000, but I have NO respect for him after
    sucking up to the same people that slimed him in 2000, Rove and
    the christianist right at the top of the list.
    Can you even IMAGINE the kinky freaky things McCain had to do
    when seeking Jerry FallWell’s endorsement? ewwwww

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads.
    Whoohooo. What a bunch of horseshit.
    Its a real trip complimenting speechwriters for putting words in our statesmen’s mouths. Yeah, I know, its “the way things are done in Washington”.
    Damn, I wish I could write one of these speeches for these bastards. Maybe I could incite them into beating the shit out of each other instead of feeding us their usual line of hogwash.
    Tell ya what, why don’t you mosey on over to the LA Times website, and note the fact that Maliki is disbanding, arresting, and demonizing the so called “Sons of Iraq”. Remember them? Those are the “former baathists”, “Sunni insurgents”, and “Saddam loyalists” that Bush/Cheney told us we were there to depose. That is, before this scam called the “surge”, (led by the politically inspired Bush lackey and consummate liar Petreaus) developed a stategy of paying these stalwarts of democracy to stop killing American soldiers long enough for Bush to hand this clusterfuck off to the incoming band of above-the-law executive abusers.
    Seen either side telling the American people the TRUTH about the surge? Biden??? Obama??? McCain??? Romney???
    Well, the surge has nothing to do with boots on the ground, and everything to do with spending billions paying off yesterday’s “enemy”. And it looks like that illicit strategy might even fall apart before Monkey Boy and his cohorts crawl, slither, or ooze out of the Oval Office. But fear not, they’ll take our eyes off the clusterfuck in the Middle East by giving us a new cluusterfuck in Georgia. And Russia REALLY DOES have nukes.
    But hey, don’t sweat it, its carnival time in Washington. Eat drink and be merry. Nows no time to worry about a million dead Iraqis, murdered by lies.
    Cut these politicos some slack. After all, war criminals hafta party too.
    (BTW, welcome back, WigWag. I see you and Sweetness enjoyed the same timely hiatus. You must correlate schedules)

    Reply

  41. jizel says:

    I just found this blog. I suppose I still would have preferred Hillary to Obama because she campaigns with boxing gloves on. But I am so tired of hearing the political hogwash. Does anyone remember this song? “I can do anything better than you. No you can’t. Yes I can. No you can’t. Yes I can Yes I can Yes I can” etc. so let’s see, McCain can’t remember how many homes he owns. Now perhaps he was just being sarcastic with his response – but even if he was joking, in an economy such as ours where people are struggling, how dare he be so callous and insensitive.
    On another note, does anyone remember whether of not GWB had ANY experience to be president? Did that matter? He neither had the experience nor the brains. His absolute unwillingness to listen to anyone who was not on his team, got us into a lot of trouble in the world, and killed a lot of people.
    Does anyone remember that GWB originally ran on the “less government” platform? Whatever happened to that? Seems to me there’s much more government in my life today than ever before.
    Does anyone remember that only a little while ago, McCain said that we will stay in Iraq forever (or t he equvalent) and yes just a few days ago, Condi Rice announced that she has begun negotiations for a timed withdrawal of our troops. Does anyone report on this in relation to what McCain has to say about that????
    So am I wholly for Obama? Not in the way I would like to be but for sure, Obama/Biden has got to be a better ticket than McCain and anyone else. And if it’s Mitt on McCain’s ticket, does anyone remember that they were less than civil to each other on the primary trail. what will the pundits have to say about that. Or how about an unknown Governor for VP. Or how about Joe Lieberman – talk about someone who moves from side to side.
    And just because McCain was a POW, does that make him an expert on war? Or an expert on suppressed revenge? He, like Bush, intuitively-speaking, has
    that edge of anger that scares me.
    I’d much prefer Obama, who strikes me as someone who is eager to learn, to get to the truth, and one who is open to changing his mind. Or you can have Bush whose major trait is that once he makes up his mind, there is no going back. That works.
    thanks for your postings. Enjoy the conventions!

    Reply

  42. WigWag says:

    “I care about two issues primarily—health care that neither Clinton nor Obama would/could fix the way I think it should be–but will be better than any Republican. But mostly about the Supreme Court and nominations to it.”
    I agree entirely. That’s why it’s really too bad that we have such a divisive and weak nominee.

    Reply

  43. Linda says:

    WigWag,
    I have neither a sinking nor a soaring feeling right now at all, and I don’t think any polls mean much of anything until about a month from now. If Obama were 20-30 points ahead, I wouldn’t be as thrilled about it as you seem to be about his having lost ground since June.
    I care about two issues primarily—health care that neither Clinton nor Obama would/could fix the way I think it should be–but will be better than any Republican. But mostly about the Supreme Court and nominations to it.
    You have decided he is a “charlatan” and MarkL thinks he has no qualities to recommend him and that he is a weaker candidate than George Bush.
    Obama knows basic world geography and has more foreign policy experience than George Bush had or even cared about. George Bush didn’t get into Univeristy of Texas Law School and then went to get his Harvard MBA.
    Obama surely must have had some qualities close up and personal to impress his classmates at Harvard Law School for them to elect him to head their Law Review. Actually even those in the Federalist Society thought he’d listen to their side. And probably what impressed me most of all was that Laurence Tribe thought way back when Obama was a student that he just might end up being President some day.
    MarkL, if your state really is that red, you can have the luxury of going for McCain or anyone from about 20 other parties depending who is on your ballot. I’d prefer that you do that, but it’s your choice.
    Wigwag,I personally think that any woman in a state that is in play would be making a mistake to vote for McCain, but that’s her right to be wrong.
    I will be very upset on November 5 if McCain is elected and much more so when he makes his first nomination to the Supreme Court. And then there probably will be a second one and maybe a third.
    That gives me a real sinking feeling, but not only is the campaign not over yet. It ain’t even started yet and won’t until the Olympics end.

    Reply

  44. Dennis says:

    There is no more reason to get excited that Joe Biden is the VP pick for the Democratic party than it is for Barack Obama to run for the presidency. The same can be said for the candidates of the Republican party.
    It doesn’t matter which party wins, the Party (big P intended) is the one that ultimately remains in charge – the Business Party.
    As one small example of that, when are Americans going to realize that the tax breaks they get and swoon over are merely the crumbs and the left overs after the Business Party gets the cake?
    And to quote another blogger. “Praise the Lord, the establishment has been preserved! It’s still safe to vote for middle east wars and bailouts for credit card companies. I shall sleep well tonight knowing I don’t have get all stressed worrying that all the same old players won’t be in the same old places doing the same old things when I wake tomorrow. Yawn. In fact, I feel so comfortable right here in the status quo, I think I’ll turn right over and go back to sleep.” Posted by bluebell.”
    And not least, anyone expecting the Democrats to restore civil liberties back to where they were even two years ago can forget it. We are now where the soviets used to be – guilty until you can prove you are innocent, but you can’t know the charges againist you for “national security” reasons.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  45. aresluna says:

    “the Democratic Convention hasn’t even started yet and Senator Obama is already melting down.”
    I laughed when I read that. If you turn on the news you will see discussions on Obama and Biden, and questions about how out of touch McCain is. The momentum has offically changed. Its almost like they planned it that way. Hmmm… Smarter than you gave them credit for? It was August after all.
    Now if the Obama/Biden camp would start to hit McCain where it hurts, they might stand a chance.
    Howzabout they start asking vets and current service members if they would entrust the leadership of their country, with a guy who crashed his plane four times during non combat operations. If asked, would our men and women in uniform consider recklessness and hotheadedness (according to McCains service freinds and wing mates) good leadership traits? jjdidtiebuckle? Is being an LT. CinC qualified experience? (not digging on LT’s, its tough work but not quite president qualifications) That is essentially McCains military experience, a LT with 20 hours of combat time. Would you vote for your LT for president?
    I know the immediate response will be that Obama lacks even McCains minimal experience, but I think that is the point. Comparing an insignificant quantity to a zero quantity adds up to almost no difference, and so judgment becomes the issue rather than experience.

    Reply

  46. MarkL says:

    Bil,
    Obama stands for NOTHING, has NO experience and, worst of all, no spine.
    How can I support him, when he has no qualities to recommend him?
    I have never seen such a weak Democratic candidate.
    Bush was less qualified (barely) but made up for that with great message discpline.
    Obama projects both inexperience and vacillating, hesitating uncertainty.
    My vote is in a very red state anyway, so it’s not relevant.
    I will be shocked if Obama wins, at this point.

    Reply

  47. WigWag says:

    Linda asks “What’s the point?”
    I think the point is that the Democratic Convention hasn’t even started yet and Senator Obama is already melting down. Senator Biden doesn’t seem to be a bad guy. Like all politicians he has strengths and weaknesses. But it’s hard to see this selection reversing Obama’s downward spiral.
    Polls of the popular vote are turning against Senator Obama and he is beginning to lose ground in key states. His hope of making in roads in the South is evaporating fast (except maybe Virginia). And to make matters worse, Senator Obama has just ticked off millions of Clinton supporters by not selecting their candidate or even vetting her.
    It’s still too early to tell for sure, but it’s beginning to look like Senator Obama is blowing the most winnable election in a generation for Democrats.
    Be honest, Linda. Aren’t you beginning to get a sinking feeling about Senator Obama’s chances?

    Reply

  48. Chicagoan says:

    I’m disappointed they went with a reptile. Biden’s roles as a mastermind of the appalling drug war and as an engineer of bankruptcy reform should disqualify him from polite society let alone the Democratic ticket—and that doesn’t get into his insane proposal to dismember Iraq. Obama has showed himself to be hopeless beyond my worst imaginings.

    Reply

  49. Dan Kervick says:

    I’ll second what Don Bacon says. Given the kinds of topics that you will usually find us discussing on the web, you know Don and I personally care a lot about national security issues. But that’s just not where the public is these days.
    Given the way McCain just exposed his soft underbelly with his clueless “How Many Houses?” gaffe, it might have been nice to see the Obama campaign go in for the economic kill here, rather than go with a foreign policy guy. On the other hand, last week the big issue was Georgia, and that’s when they were making the decision.
    I’m a bit surprised that, with all the hype they generated, the campaign did not try to do something more exciting with this pick. I really thought that Obama was more disposed to demonstrate some sort of “outside the box” thinking with this pick. But he went way, way inside the box.

    Reply

  50. Linda says:

    WigWag,
    I’ve already seen and heard those same quotes several times today in McCain ads on TV ever since Biden’s name was announced for VP. You could have just linked us to the ad on YouTube. And within 24 hours, Obama-Biden campaign will have an answer–not that I think it’s important issue in the campaign to prove that Biden is a politician and has changed his mind now that he is running with Obama rather than against him. So does that make him a liar? What’s the point? We already know that you don’t like or trust Obama.
    MarkL,
    Experience didn’t do us much good with Rumsfeld and Cheney–or would with McCain. So I’d prefer Biden as a shadow VP (which won’t happen with Obama as President anyhow)–though my first preference would be anyone who didn’t vote for military action in Iraq or was against it from the start. A lot of totally inexperienced people I know who are not politicians were smart enough to know it was a bad idea to invade Iraq. Even “41” was smart enough to realize the potential problems with doing that.
    McCain’s experience tells him that we need to win wars, and I think that perhaps the last time we won one was 1945 because that’s the last time that we actually fought a constitutionally declared war. And IMO if I’ve learned anything in the past 50 plus years, Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex.
    I’ve pretty much given up persuading anyone who comments here to find some candidate in this election worthy of a little of your time to actually go out and work for him/her in this election–for Senate if not for President. My guess is that large majority of those who comment here will vote for Obama with or without holding their noses because on both foreign policy/national security and domestic/economic issues, Obama-Biden is better than McCain-whoever.

    Reply

  51. Don Bacon says:

    Americans don’t care much about national security.
    National security is not a current top consideration for Americans, according to a recent CBS News/New York Times Poll. The most important concern of Americans, by far, is domestic economic issues, outweighing national security (ex-Iraq) by more than six to one.
    Poll results:
    * The economy and jobs 40%
    * Gas prices and energy policy 15%
    * War in Iraq 15%
    * Terrorism and national security 9%
    http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

    Reply

  52. WigWag says:

    According to John Zogby, Obama has lost 12 points against McCain in the past month. It started with his disasterous trip to Europe and the Middle East and has been getting worse since.
    Zogby Poll, August 22, 2008
    McCain 46, Obama 41. This is the first statistically significant lead for either candidate in the past several weeks.
    I wonder whether the Biden pick will help.

    Reply

  53. Don Bacon says:

    Obama: “We know what we’re going to get from the other side. Four more years of the same out-of-touch policies that created . . .[a] disastrous foreign policy abroad.”
    o Obama has supported the continuance of American world hegemony: “The security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders.” To enhance American world hegemony, Obama has supported expansion of the army and Marines, and “building the first truly 21st century military.”
    o Obama has consistently voted for bloated military budgets, star wars and continuing the Iraq war, as well as expansion of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan. In 2006 Obama supported Israel’s rape of Lebanon, but now he has taken on Russia for doing in Georgia essentially what Israel did in Lebanon.

    Reply

  54. Mr.Murder says:

    Have fun sweeping the northeastern corridor of votes.
    That still won’t win it.
    Southern presidents win for Democrats.

    Reply

  55. Bil says:

    MarkL, I can’t believe you are writing it either unless you like
    McCain’s belief that we are “winning” or can WIN in Iraq, same for
    the surge which failed in it’s political goals on top of an illegal
    invasion and botched occupation.
    McCain was HOT to do IRAQ supposedly even b4 Rumsfeld,
    Secretary of Offense, showed W all those great targets.
    George W Bush was led into the Iraq war by Neoconservatives
    Rumsfeld and Cheney who hijacked US foreign policy with a
    disastrous and now clearly FAILED Middle East Domino Democracy
    theory. Bush was just dumb, McCain is old AND a warmonger.

    Reply

  56. Ben Rosengart says:

    I’m not worried about the continuation of the Cheney model.
    Bush is checked-out — wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
    No light in his eyes. To me, in contrast, Obama seems curious,
    engaged, alive. I see in him neither the need nor the desire for a
    Rasputin figure.
    Let’s hope I’m right (and work hard to ensure we get the chance
    to find out).

    Reply

  57. WigWag says:

    Steve, thanks for the text of the speech. Now that we know what Senator Obama is planning to say about Senator Biden, here’s what Senator Biden had to say about Senator Obama in one of the debates:
    George Stephanopoulos (addressing Senator Biden):
    “You were asked is Senator Obama ready. You said I think he can be ready but right now I don’t believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training.”
    Senator Biden
    “I think that I stand by the statement.”
    And here’s what Senator Biden had to say about Senator McCain on Meet the Press:
    Senator Biden (responding to a question from Tim Russert):
    “I would be honored to run with or against John McCain because I think the country would be better off…”
    I wonder what the Republicans will do when they get a hold of that one.

    Reply

  58. MarkL says:

    Steve, thanks for the note.
    I also read this site almost daily, but comment rarely these days, as you may have noticed.
    I just think the choice of Biden clashes horribly with Obama’s message. In addition, Biden has never excited voters; I don’t see why that should change now.
    On one point I’m already proven correct: apparently Biden said that Obama is the best (politician?) he’s ever seen. Like I said, Biden knows how to butter his bread.
    I can’t believe I’m writing this, but I believe McCain is a marginally better choice than Obama.
    Aren’t you worried about Obama tacitly continuing the Cheney model for the Vice Presidency?
    Shadow powers are unaccountable. Biden is being added because he is intended to be the power behind the throne, IMO, Obama not having the experience to do the job himself.

    Reply

  59. Steve Clemons says:

    No worries MarkL — I liked the speech a lot. And I’ve been worried for quite a while that we would have a team running on the Dem ticket that would be hard for me to be enthusiastic about.
    Thanks for your note — and hope that you keep communicating your concerns about Obama’s speeches as well.
    They are reading this site — and the comments.
    best, steve

    Reply

  60. MarkL says:

    Boilerplate, as usual.
    I still have no conception of how Obama’s speeches excite people.
    (you’re right, I didn’t read the whole thing—not enough fortitude).

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *