John Kerry Delivers Keynote Lecture at Ireland’s University of Ulster

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry Delivers Keynote Lecture at Ireland’s University of Ulster
March 5th, 2006 @ 10:09 am

John Kerry is in Northern Ireland today to deliver a keynote lecture at the University of Ulster. Kerry’s speech is part of the Tip O’Neill series of peace lectures at the University.

The following is an advance copy of the speech as received by The Democratic Daily — “Security in a Dangerous World”:

This January, I took a trip of my own where I saw first hand the importance of applying this lesson of hope and perseverance to the challenges we face today. I saw emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq struggling to overcome terrorism and sectarian strife as they work to create a better future. I saw Israel’s democracy persevere despite the incapacitation of its leader. I saw high-tech companies thriving in India in the midst of great poverty. In Pakistan, where tensions between a secular leader and a restless Islamist movement run high, thanks to the response of the world I saw 9,000 children emerge from the devastation of a massive earthquake go to school for the first time.

I saw open societies and closed societies, rich and poor, high tech and low tech, secular and religious. Everywhere I turned, there were disconnects. So many people desperately trying to connect to the rest of the world to make a better future, while so many others desperately cling to the past, doing everything in their power to prevent connection to anything unfamiliar.

These disconnects map the fault lines of today’s conflict and future conflicts. It is in these fault lines that radical Islamists recruit their followers by playing to stereotypes of western civilization. But it is here that the critical challenges of our time is defined: winning the struggle against terror and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2133

[globalvillage]

1. I have been waiting for this.

Thanks. Reading...
:yourock:

[kerrygoddess]

3. Glad I was able to get it. N/T

[MH1]

2. Excellent...thanks!

Like gv, I'm off to read the rest!

[globalvillage]

4. This is good.

"Above all, we must remember, democratization is not a crusade. If it is seen as the result of an army marching through Muslim lands it will fail. Perhaps more importantly, that’s not the way democracy works."

I get all tingly when he says stuff like that.

:P

Edit
"I believe that together we can create a world in which wars are rare; a world in which America and her allies are protected by alliances forged in common interest and purpose; and a world in which order is preserved by the will of democratic nations who understand that all ships rise on a rising tide."

OK, tingly again.

[karynnj]

5. What a beautiful speech - He should have been the leader of the free world

I think I need to read it a few times before beginning to understand it better. It does give context to his comments on all those countries.

[ProSense]

6. Excellent speech!

This is most notable:

And we must work with moderate Muslims, especially clerics, to permanently discredit the belief that the murder of innocents can be justified in the name of God, race, or nation.

As is this:

It was a notable moment in the 2004 presidential campaign when President Bush and I agreed that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons posed the greatest security threat of the 21st Century. To meet this challenge, we are going to have to be strong—but also smart. The most obvious example of this potentially devastating nexus is Iran, where the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism has defied the world by moving forward with its nuclear program. A nuclear armed Iran clearly poses an unacceptable threat to global security. To make sure that never happens, America must lead an unrelenting collective effort that matches the urgency of the threat.

To be smart, however, we must also correct the inherent flaw in the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty that allows nations such as Iran to advance their illicit nuclear weapons capability under the cover of permitted civilian nuclear programs. The fact is that once a country can create its own nuclear fuel, it can probably build a nuclear weapon. To prevent this, America and other nuclear powers must establish international control of the nuclear fuel cycle by creating a reliable, affordable, and accessible bank of nuclear fuel. This will allow us to provide reactor fuel to states that conform to non-proliferation agreements while keeping that fuel under strict international safeguards.

America can also provide more determined leadership in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons by setting the right example ourselves. By advancing negotiations on a global fissile material cut-off treaty; foreswearing the development of new nuclear weapons; and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we can send the right message to the world about our commitment to creating a more effective global non-proliferation regime.

To meet these great challenges of terrorism and proliferation, we must reinvigorate alliances so we can marshal the collective will and resources of America and our allies. The United States has been at its best when working together with other countries in an international system of global reach and power that links the security and welfare of all free nations around the world. It was this system that won the Cold War and made possible the incredible progress of the last 60 years. It is an approach that restores traditions that have passed the test of time — and that is the message I take home with me after traveling the world from India to Pakistan to Iraq to Israel.

[Mass]

8. This is a proposal he made during the campaign concerning Iran

It was laughed at by the GOP and many Democrats as well, unfortunately.

[ProSense]

9. Markey did a piece

about the recent deal with India -- Giving Away the Farm:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2491925&mesg_id=2491925

Even Republicans are questioning Bush on this deal.

From a WaPo (linked in Markey's commentary):

Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), who chairs the International Relations subcommittee on international terrorism and nonproliferation, said he welcomed better ties with India, but not at any cost.

Lugar in NYT:

Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who leads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has raised more than 80 questions about the deal that he says need to be answered before it can be approved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/international/02cnd-nuke.html

[karynnj]

10. I wonder how many of Lugar's questions

came from the Democrat how heads the east asia sub committee and who sounded far more intelligent in India than that clown there this week.

[Mass]

13. My congressman and a great congressman.

I wonder where Kerry comes on this deal. When he was in India, he seemed to be very cautious about his position and refusing to be negative on the deal, but it may be just because he was in India.

[karynnj]

17. Even there he raised some concerns

The one I remember was that it impacted 3 international treaties and he had a problem with India and the US doing that unilaterally (bilatterall??). His big concern was proliferation.

[ProSense]

18. This was in a speech he gave

Senator Kerry: Let me be very clear about those components that extend beyond the bilateral. In order to pass this, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has to reach agreement, consensus. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 has to be amended, and the missile technology control regime has to be affected. So you have three major international agreements and bodies that are affected by this 'bilateral agreement.' So while there are enormous bilateral benefits, if I were just looking at this bilaterally, I'd say 'Hallelujah, terrific, this is great.' But the implications beyond this are not something you can just totally ignore. For instance, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, all made fundamental decisions within a certain context. Now, they signed on to an agreement. But they forewent options available to them in choosing do to so. India chose not to go down that road, and I think nothing is benefited by going back into history and sort of revisiting all of the non-alignment years and all of the difficulties of that period. But it does have an implication with respect to where we go forward in the future, and what peoples' rightful expectations will be. That's why the question asked by the reporter from New York Times is so important. Because if we are going to give that meaning, then what's happening in Iran today has to be taken with the utmost seriousness by all countries involved -- China, Russia, United States, European Community, India and likewise -- the impact on our efforts as we go down the road here are automatically on the table by virtue of this bilateral agreement. You just can't ignore that if you are going to be responsible. It's our job to be responsible about something like nuclear weapons.

http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr011306.html

[karynnj]

11. Hasn't Hagel recently suggested about the same

thing for Iran.

[Mass]

7. Just finished to read it.

My first take is that I like it. I noticed the same thing you did, particularly the quotes about democracy not being a crusade, about how must help the ME integrate in the world, and how we must get rid of our oil dependency.

I have to read it again several times before I can have a full idea of what he said.

Happy to read that.

[Mass]

12. AP review of the speech

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/05/kerry_us_must_end_the_empire_of_oil_to_win_war_on_terror/

Kerry: U.S. must 'end the empire of oil' to win war on terror

March 5, 2006

LONDONDERRY, Northern Ireland --The United States must rebuild the power of the United Nations and help "end the empire of oil" if it wants to win the "war on terror," U.S. Sen. John Kerry said Sunday.
Article Tools

The Massachusetts Democrat avoided explicit criticisms of the Bush administration during a wide-ranging speech on the global dynamics of terror. But he said Bush's policy of imposing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan risked looking like a crusade.

...


Kerry said the UN must play a forceful role in places like Iraq and Darfur, referring to the western region of Sudan where Sudanese Arab militias have been wiping out black African communities with impunity.

"Literally, the West must reclaim its moral leadership," he said.

Developing effective replacements for oil-based fuels also was key, he said. The West's insatiable appetite for petroleum from the Middle East "has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power. The international community of democratic nations cannot afford to continue funding both sides of the war on terror. We must end the empire of oil."

Good coverage, globally.

Interesting that they noted the absence of criticism of Bush (I assume this was because the speech was made abroad). It is interesting because my husband had exactly the same reaction. He said that the speech would have been more forceful if Kerry had noted more clearly how * had not done these things.

[karynnj]

14. My reaction too - and I think for the same reason

Maybe it was his diplomatic background. Note how the AP then says that Bush's policies risk looking like a crusade - where Kerry didn't mention Bush at all in that section. I expect that hate radio may pick up on this inaccurate paraphrase of what Kerry said, but Kerry's in the clear.

If the speech were given in the US, I still think there is merit in not making it a critique of Bush. You gain "red meat" for the base, but lose the ability to project a vision and explain your view of the world. I think that, as the AP did, readers will see when what he opposes is clearly not what Bush is doing that he is implicitly disagreeing.

I assume the AP was parsing the speech for paragraphs that they could react to with outrage - like they just did to Gore - for his foreign speech. It's good that they did give some gist of what he was saying. (The other thing I expect from the RW is that they might say that Kerry is following Bush on energy independence. But even they won't really believe that.)

[Mass]

15. Actually, this is the reason why my husband reacted this way.

As the neo-cons have totally coopted the internationalist message (and now the energy independence message), if you dont show how you are different, you could be seen as agreeing with them.

Of course, anybody who knows Kerry understand how ludicrous this is, but there are still people who dont want to know and who could say that the same words could be said by Newt Gingritch (meaning something totally different).

It worries me only because we have seen them coopt Kerry's message so often, from announcing that they wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq after the election to this "energy independence" issue that it seems to become an habit.

May be he should run with the slogan: "John Kerry: he gets it right the first time".

[karynnj]

16. That makes sense because they always do that

Gingrich would never give that speech as given, but the 5 or 6 paragraph summary that even the most informed people will likely be so boiled down that that is the case.

I like your slogan - but apparently (from 2004) people don't like people who know more than they do - which I actually don't believe.

[Mass]

19. sabra posted it on LBN - Of course the anti-Kerry crowd is there

attacking Kerry on the basis on the AP article.

[politicasista]

21. Interesting how they bring up the Swifties, IWR, and stolen election

Go figure. :-(

[karynnj]

22. They've been bringing up IWR all day!

I absolutely have no comprehension of how anyone could read the 2 paragraphs of Kerry's Georgetown speech where he admitted that he shouldn't have voted for the resolution and then took responsibility and think that Edwards "I was wrong" was more compelling.

It was even hard to watch Kerry say what he had to say. While to me - on MTP, Edwards could have been referring to a Calculus problem he got wrong on an exam. (Does it say much that I was more impressed with Kemp's answers than Edwards - even though economics isn't the answer to everything.

[Mass]

23. So, I was not alone. I stopped watching after a while because it

was becoming to hard to watch. It seemed like if Kemp was the grown-up answering the questions (whether I agreed with him or not) and Edwards was rushing in order to say "Me too".

I missed the part about the IWR and about Katrina, but my husband was mad at the answers on both: first because he could not quote a Democrat who had warned Bush to keep Iraq international (One hint, senator: the guy you were running with), then he said that government failed at all levels in Katrina, but did not say that Bush's errors were at another level. And this guy wants to run again?

[karynnj]

27. I was never really that much of an Edwards fan

was not impressed by him in the primary debates, thought his the weakest of the big convention speeches, and thought he was mediocre versus Cheney. I was also very turned off by the NYT article that spoke of him channeling a dead baby in a malpractice suit. (That story really bothered me)

So, I was biased coming in. When he spoke on the IWR, he kept looking at the camera with really wide eyes. I also thought he lied when he spoke of being lied to etc. because it ignored a Hardball interview (that I only saw because it was posted on DKos around the time of the op-ed) where he basically said he never thought there were WMD, but that Saddam destabalizing that area was another reason (Warning - I may be slightly off on reason - it bothered me because it sounded like the reasons REMOVED from the IWR) He really had no ideas of what to do in Iraq.

His answer on Dubai seemed very weak - saying only that Americans should do this - but with no proposal as to how to get to that. No comments on the lack of review.

All I know is I am less impressed with him than before. (It didn't help that I looked in his skeleton closet (along with the others last night) -

[ProSense]

24. Whether it's

"I was wrong," "I made a mistake" or "I regret...," these people are quibbling about BS. Seriously, people are not at home wringing their hands about the semantics of this. They want Bush held accountable, especially the ones who voted for him and now feel betrayed.

And whatever, the vote wasn't "wrong," Bush is wrong.

[karynnj]

34. You also know that if the words were switched between the 2 men

they would have made the same claim. In particular, I would guess they would focus on "I accept responsibility" - which in reality goes beyond "I was wrong". (I regret getting involved at all - because what it gets down to in reality is who do you believe is sincere. )

[Mass]

25. Interestingly, somebody decided this speech means Kerry is a hawk.

Of course, he does not explain how he arrives to this conclusion, but who knows?

May be proposing a solution to fight proliferation, suggesting that the UN takes his role again, and saying the solution to the so-called WoT (while not endorsing the term himself) is not military!

[karynnj]

26. That thread has people I've never seen before

but with high numbers of posts. They really really don't make sense - from that one who apparently things the answer is legalized industrial hemp! The first time, Kerry uses the term, w o T he comments on it - but as its what everyone calls it there is no sensible choice except to use the phrase.

Note that he said it REAFIRMED his view that Kerry was a hawk.

[sandnsea]

28. Psycho thread

I started to post "is everybody in this country fucked in the head", but figured I'd come here and vent instead. How many times does the man have to point out that we need to stop fighting wars for oil until these people who want to stop fighting wars for oil can hear him. Kerry deaf, I guess that's it.

[karynnj]

29. I just wish I had your sense

I did post there, and on the whacko "only Edwards' I was wrong" is a valid retraction of the IWR vote, and on a lunitic part of the Kate Michelman(NOW) running 3rd party against Casey. Between those and yesterday's arguing with a snake - I think I need to stay here for a wekk or so - to keep others from getting mad at me.

[sandnsea]

30. Oh they're WAY past mad at me

Most of them moved to hatred a very long time ago. I really lost it yesterday when someone took some great words by Kucinich on the incompetence of Bush, and tried to twist it into him saying "LIHOP". If Dennis Kucinich, of all people, wanted to say that, he'd just out and out say it. I lost my mind on that one. Have to wait a day or two before I do it again. :)

[Mass]

32. For some reasons, AP changed his text - Apparently, the text did

not reflect well enough the speech - No surprise.

The new version stops the mephasis on "WoT" (which was minimal in the speech - he even explains at the beginning that the theme has been exploited by the administration) and explains he criticizes Bush's operations. Of course, I have no way to know if this article reflects what Kerry said better than the previous one.

All I can see is that some on GD and LBN are still ready to believe AP at its word now if it can lead to attack Kerry (or any other pol they dislike ) - not a big surprise and by now, I should be used to that, but sometimes I still think people can be honest.

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-8/114161402150330.xml&storylist=washington

[Island Blue]

20. Great speech - thanks for posting.

I thought this part was totally on the mark.

Literally, the west must reclaim its moral leadership. To be successful in this battle of ideas, we must undermine the jihadist propaganda about the west. All allied nations have to pay greater attention to how our words and deeds are understood in the Middle East, because our good intentions are doubted by the very people the terrorists seek to turn against us. And these efforts must be bolstered with tangible investments, not just in foreign aid, but in the Arab people themselves in the form of schools, hospitals and other institutions that give people a voice and a stake in civil society.

My neighbors lived in Saudi for nearly twenty years (the husband worked for an American company there), and they often talk about about their experiences there, and about many cultural characteristics unique to the Arab/Muslim people. I think the US has totally failed (most likely on purpose) to understand these differences and this failure of understanding has caused many problems and created many fresh, new "terrorists".

On another note, I've often thought about the conflict in Northern Ireland when hearing about some of the atrocities (such as Abu Grab)that Bush and his cabal have committed during the "war on terror". We apparently learned much from what the British government did to the Catholics in the North during the 60's, 70's and 80's including occupying an entire nation at gunpoint, interning people indefinitely without trail, torture, etc.

Helping to broker peace in the North of Ireland was IMO one of the greatest accomplishments of the Clinton Administration. It's going to take a Herculean effort to do the same in the Middle East, and we damn well better elect an American president who's up to the challenge!

And finally, I hope JK had at least a little extra time to see a bit of the country. It's an unforgettable place that has a very special place in my heart. I'm glad he was able to reschedule this trip!

[Mass]

31. Interestingly, AP has changed his text.

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-8/114161402150330.xml&storylist=washington

[Mass]

33. I hate the stupidity of those of the guys in LBN

Most of which I have never seen anyway, but who cant read a speech before commenting on it.

Of course, they expected that an academic speech would be full of "F*ck *", I think.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. An academic speech full of "F*ck Bush"....

... is their wet dream.

Notice how none of these people lurk around DU ever - they come out of the woodwork like cockroaches, responding to the mention of Kerry's name like dogs to Pavlov's bell.

It's not suspicious or anything. :eyes:

[beachmom]

35. A lot of ideas to chew on in the speech

I tried to read it from the perspective of the Iraqi bloggers and Arabs, in general, and he showed total respect for them, and what they can accomplish. But . . . Islamists are winning elections -- most notably, in Iraq and Palestine -- and what JK is talking about will take time. A lot of time. The Iraqi bloggers that I read are for the most part either secular or moderate Muslims, who want democracy. They do not despise the West, although many have had bad experiences with the U.S. forces (which is bound to happen in any occupation). But it was completely universal, their disdain for the Danish cartoons, and several talked about boycotting Danish products, and even said they understood the rioting in the streets. So what does this all mean? From left to right, you've got secular democratic Muslims, moderate democratic Muslims, conservative only lukewarm democratic Muslims (they'll vote, but want Sharia law), radical but nonviolent anti-democratic Muslims, and radical, violent, anti-democratic Muslims. Throw in the mix, of course, the secular, Baathist, anti-democratic, violent Iraqis as well. I think it is dangerous to get all excited about the vote when the third group (conservative) is winning the most votes. In the end, if Sharia law is not imposed, they will become anti-democratic. But what they all have in common is a desire for the West to respect them. They suffer from low self esteem as a group which can explain the rise in radicalism.

JK talks about creating secular institutions to counteract this radicalism. I endorse that idea wholeheartedly, but unfortunately, it will take a generation or more for the benefits of those investments to be realized. In the mean time, I think that there will be more war. Because there are only two groups who are on "our" side, and we keep thinking we can count on the third group, but they would abandon us in a minute if their idea of a strict society isn't imposed on all.

When the Danish cartoon controversy hit (and I do think JK is talking about this without specifically saying so), I had a knee jerk, RW reaction. This was because I felt the West was being threatened by radical Islamists who want to dismantle our core values, like free speech. But I realize now that the universal Muslim reaction was to say -- oh, yes, the West doesn't respect us, as usual -- something we cannot afford right now. We need to keep the secular and moderate Muslims on our side, and start to reach out to the conservative Muslims that true democracy can work for them, too. The other groups we will have to write off as unpersuadable.

[karynnj]

36. Thank you for doing this - this is a wonderful post.

Given the topic of the speech - the reaction of the muslim world (if they hear it) is one test of whether what he says makes sense. I really like Kerry's vision on this. One think I have always liked about Kerry is that he seems to have an almost innate respect for others, even if he disagrees with them or if they are different from him. (A quality that gets no respect on DU-P)

[beachmom]

37. On the Iraq thread, I read your post about the Arab League

I hope that they stay there and try to keep the factions together. But to be honest, I think the political situation (as opposed to the insurgency or terrorism) has gone from bad to worse, with the Shiite majority alliance (who are strict pro-Iran Islamists), doing a complete power grab, basically thumbing their noses to the Sunnis and Kurds. Perhaps this is why the Arab League, which is mostly Sunni unlike the Persians, is in there. They want to protect their ethnic group -- Sunni Arabs. The whole thing is so complicated, and yet the * administration keep talking about the "terrorists" which is way too general. It is true that it used to be just the Sunni insurgency -- an alliance between Zarqawi's al Qaeda and the former Baathists -- that perpetrated violence, but I think that is no more. Now I am reading more about Shiites committing violence, even in the government. It makes me roll my eyes when I heard someone from the military saying "the terrorists want to start a civil war", when in reality it is not completely one sided. Each side is either blowing stuff/people up or refusing to compromise or sponsoring death squads, all of which increases tension on all sides.

[karynnj]

49. I agree that the Iraq situation looks very bleak

The Arab League news creates only a very small spark of hope. The only reason I give any value to it is remembering Kerry's early 2005 comments (after he went on the ME and Europe tour) that in speaking to all the countries there when asked they all had a vested interest in a peaceful region. The chaos hurts all the governments in the region. If the Arab leaque (possibly in conjuction with Iran), help Iraq with the needed diplomatic effort needed to at least function better, the worst possible situation could be avoided.

At this point, they may want us to stay out of the negotiations.

[rox63]

38. You can download the MP3 of the speech here

http://www.ulster.ac.uk/news/downloads/kerry.mp3

[Mass]

40. Thanks - Listening now - Happy to see Teresa was there.

Good beginning - Still not in the speech yet.

How can people say he is stiff? I dont understand.

[TayTay]

44. I love his comments on The Speaker.

Tip O'Neill was a great man. That was really, really nice to hear. (All things considered, that was so nice. Wow! Made me tear up.) I also love the intro for Teresa. That's lovely and very tender.

And That Friggin Idiot can't even spell meditate, never mind admit to doing it.

[jenndar]

41. Whee, thanks!

Can't wait to listen :)

[Mass]

42. I hope they will post the real speech text

As much as the "prepared for delivery" speech was good, Kerry corrected many of the pbs that existed in the speech when delivering it. He always succeeds to add the relevant examples that make the speech even better.

And AP clearly did not see the speech. Why there was no red meat (except the Cheney joke), there were a lot of direct critcism to the government.

[rox63]

43. Here you go

http://www.ulster.ac.uk/news/john-kerry-speech.pdf

[Mass]

53. These are the remarks prepared for delivery (mostly what KG posted

yesterday except the part on Tip O'Neil at the beginning). Excellent to read. I just think it is too bad they do not transcribe what he actually said, because there were a lot of adlibem that improve the speech even more.

But thanks anyway.

[Island Blue]

45. Thanks for posting yet.

I swear it makes me sad every time I hear JK speak. We could really use someone in the White House who speaks in complete sentences. Someone whose level of humor rises above Bevis and Butthead. Someone who understands the world, and not just forty acres of a Texas pig farm. I'm sure the people he spoke to in Northern Ireland appreciated him much more than people in America do.

[TayTay]

46. Plus, he sounds sort of wistful.

Must be Ireland, it gets to ya. (It makes Boston people all nostalgic. Even if they are 'Irish by Association.') Honestly, that intro sounded kind of sweet and wistful. I liked it. Plus, his tone is so conversational. This is great.

Can you even imagine * trying to talk like this? He wouldn't get past the intro.

[globalvillage]

47. This is a brilliant speech.

I read it twice, and now I'm listening to it for a second time.
As delivered, it exceeded my expectations. The intro was funny and warm (Hey, did you hear him mention Pittsburgh when he introduced Teresa? Yay!), and the speech was inspiring.

He said he would take questions. Did he? Wonder if we can get audio?

:applause:

Woo Hoo, Senator.

:yourock:

[Island Blue]

51. I would love to hear the audience questions too.

The Northern Irish accent can be very difficult to understand. (Much more so than the accent of most folks in the Republic.) When I was there working for a few weeks in a holiday camp for kids several years ago, I was sort of the unofficial translator - the people from Italy, Finland and France also working at the camp had a difficult time understanding the Northern Irish accent, so I spent a lot of time translating Northern Irish English into boring, non-accented English.

[Island Blue]

48. "Can you even imagine * trying to talk like this?"

That made me laugh out loud Tay! I can't even imagine * understanding what JK is saying, much less talking like this!

You're right, his tone throughout the speech was very conversational - no Senatespeak for sure. Also, much more conversational than a stump speech - I love it.

Dammit, I want a President who says "idear".

[TayTay]

50. Okay, you can have 'idear'

I like that. I want a Prez who actually has 'idears', but I digress.

[Island Blue]

52. That would be nice too.

I guess my expectations have been lowered a bit after five years of *.

[ProSense]

54. Let's see

US leader crashed by trying to 'pedal, wave and speak at same time ...

He'd hurt himself; his brain would crash.

[ProSense]

56. Here's what happens on happens when Bush goes overseas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2497663&mesg_id=2497663

[karynnj]

55. Thanks for the link

This is wonderful. The introductions were wonderful. His comments on Tip O'Neil were great. He really did have some anti- Bush jokes - Ireland's politicians win nobel prizes, our the Pulitzer prize for fiction. I liked his comment on it being time for a mulligan on the Presidential race now.

The voice he uses here sounds great. His comments on Teresa were wonderful - it really does get at how incredible she is in her own right. It's nice that they were able to go together.

The speech is easier to follow when hearing it - it is wonderful.