General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: If Only This Goes On (Obama 'made the case he needed to make, and did it well')
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/if-only-this-goes-on/A while back I mentioned, in a quite different context, an essay by Isaac Asimov (?) on Soviet science fiction, in which he argued that the two main themes of Western sci-fi what if and if only were ruled out; instead, writers wrote on the theme if only this goes on.
And that was the theme of Obamas speech last night. And you know what? That was perfectly fine.
Obama couldnt talk about how wonderful things are, because they arent. Nor could he run against his own record. So he had to make the case that things will get much better if he gets a second term, while getting much worse if he doesnt.
And theres a lot to that case. If Obama is reelected, well have near-universal health coverage by 2014. Thats a very big thing. Financial reform is also important and has already been enacted. And theres a good chance that hell get to preside over an economic recovery that will validate his record, too.
-snip-
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,773 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)and lyin ryan and I don't think there's enough votes there to win this election. I don't see it as an If I see it as When Obama is re-elected.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)was a focus on just how radical the Romney/Ryan plans are.
There were a couple of good speeches at the DNC. I think Clinton was particularly good. And Kerry did a nice job on the foreign policy issues. But most of the speeches, while well delivered, were just a blizzard of superficial gestures -- touching every possible point to felate every little interest area inside the convention hall, while ignoring the huge elephant in the room.
The lack of substantive talk about what Romney and Ryan are planning to do with Medicare and Social Security was inexcusable as far as I'm concerned. This should be job #1 -- making sure every voter understands what those guys intend to do. Sure, Biden spent 5 seconds calling it "vouchercare" and a couple of other speakers mentioned it. But nobody explained it in simple, stark terms. What is a voucher? What does it mean? How many millions of seniors will eventually have no health care? How will the nation deal with 15 million seniors with no coverage?
How many times did we hear about "saving 1.1 million jobs", but not once did anybody explain why government intervention was the only available alternative. The simple truth is that private equity forms like Bain Capital were in hiding and banks were not lending. That's why the government had to do this. And it ended up being an excellent financial decision costing the taxpayers about $20 Bn, but avoiding the alternative, which would have been about $300 Bn in lose tax receipts food stamps and other costs if those jobs had been lost.
And how much did we hear about the role Republican obstruction played? A little, but not nearly enough, and I don't recall a single speaker taking even one sentence to emphasize the importance of electing a Congress that will support the President. I didn't see every single speech, but that message sure didn't make it to prime time.
Yeah, it was a nice happy talk show, but it really didn't nail the issues that really needed nailing. I'd give the thing an A for tone, and A- for production value and an D on content.