Bill Clinton Nominates Obama For Re-Election At Dnc

[webfact]

Bill Clinton Nominates Obama for Re-Election at DNC

By Catherine Dodge and Mark Niquette

CHARLOTTE: -- Former President Bill Clinton formally nominated Barack Obama for re-election, telling a cheering convention crowd that his policies are best for the U.S. economy.

President Obama “inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs,” Clinton said in a speech tonight at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

No president could have repaired the damage to the U.S. economy “in just four years,” Clinton said.

In their first order of business today, Democrats amended the party’s platform to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Republicans had criticized Democrats after discovering the language had been omitted, seeking to cast Obama as a weak supporter of the U.S. ally. [more...]

Full story: http://www.businessw...atic-convention

-- Buisnessweek 2012-09-06

[webfact]

Bill Clinton full DNC Speech 2012

[Chicog]

Since the other thread was unceremoniously closed, I'll continue in this one.

Behind Clinton's superb speech which picked apart the ridiculous holes in Romney's witless economic plan to give yet more of the people's trillions to his rich buddies, there was an excellent speech from Sandra Fluke (remember her? The one Limbaugh called a slut and a prostitute?).

She was imperious, and without doubt will have swung a lot of the undecided female vote in Obama's direction.

I can't wait for the debates.

[Robby nz]

He has to to keep his Mrs in a job.

[koheesti]

I thought he said a lot of good things but didn't really see how it connected with Obama. He talked about Reps and Dems working together but Obama himself said something along the lines to the Reps that he won and they should get used to it, them blocked them out the first two years. He talked about the need of working with businesses but Obama is about as anti-business as Lenin. So yes, Bill Clinton made a good speech (even if not many people watched because it was opposite the season opener of the American Football season), but he often wasn't talking about Obama.

[Ulysses G.]

He wasn't as convincing as when he said that he, "never had sex with that woman", but he was equally as honest about a future with Obama as president.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

I thought he said a lot of good things but didn't really see how it connected with Obama. He talked about Reps and Dems working together but Obama himself said something along the lines to the Reps that he won and they should get used to it, them blocked them out the first two years. He talked about the need of working with businesses but Obama is about as anti-business as Lenin. So yes, Bill Clinton made a good speech (even if not many people watched because it was opposite the season opener of the American Football season), but he often wasn't talking about Obama.

I watched the Cowboys/Giants game. The commentary was much less bombastic.

[keemapoot]

I watched the speech and thought to myself: "this guy is so good, he makes Obama look like an amateur." Looking at the faces in the audience enraptured with the guy it seemed they all wished he were still the President. Overall though, I think he helped Obama in many areas.

[chuckd]

As a disinterested outsider on the God/Palestinian omission from the platform, it would seem the Democratic party has accomplished much in the last few days.

First, when it was announced that God had been taken out of their platform and that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had also been removed, the party offended both Christian and Jewish voters.

Next, when the powers that be ruled that a voice vote to insert the two items back into the platform was ruled approved (when clearly it was not approved by a voice vote), the platform committee angered Muslims and atheists.

It's going to be hard for anybody to top this fiasco.

Well done, I say.

[koheesti]

As a disinterested outsider on the God/Palestinian omission from the platform, it would seem the Democratic party has accomplished much in the last few days.

First, when it was announced that God had been taken out of their platform and that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had also been removed, the party offended both Christian and Jewish voters.

Next, when the powers that be ruled that a voice vote to insert the two items back into the platform was ruled approved (when clearly it was not approved by a voice vote), the platform committee angered Muslims and atheists.

It's going to be hard for anybody to top this fiasco.

Well done, I say.

if this were the Republican convention and the "voice of the people" was so blatantly ignored in the roll call vote no one in the media would be speaking about any speeches so Clinton got lucky. The chairman was visibly shaken and the Arab Americans and others in the audience were out-raged. Their facial expressions are priceless. I couldn't believe it until I saw it with my own eyes.

http://www.c-spanvid...rg/clip/3872849

But the dangers of focusing on Bill Clinton's speech is that Obama is no Clinton as the speech made obvious. That's why he was offered the Wednesday night speech traditionally reserved for the VP. They knew he would overshadow Obama just by walking on the stage. It would be interesting to compare the applause from when each of these guys walk on stage. It would be close, but maybe not as close as the roll call vote.

Edited September 6, 2012 by koheesti

[Chicog]

As a disinterested outsider on the God/Palestinian omission from the platform, it would seem the Democratic party has accomplished much in the last few days.

First, when it was announced that God had been taken out of their platform and that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had also been removed, the party offended both Christian and Jewish voters.

Next, when the powers that be ruled that a voice vote to insert the two items back into the platform was ruled approved (when clearly it was not approved by a voice vote), the platform committee angered Muslims and atheists.

It's going to be hard for anybody to top this fiasco.

Well done, I say.

Doesn't the first amendment matter any more? And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem (in fact the better educated ones will realise that they are one of the key factors that work against America as far as foreign relations are concerned).

[chuckd]

As a disinterested outsider on the God/Palestinian omission from the platform, it would seem the Democratic party has accomplished much in the last few days.

First, when it was announced that God had been taken out of their platform and that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had also been removed, the party offended both Christian and Jewish voters.

Next, when the powers that be ruled that a voice vote to insert the two items back into the platform was ruled approved (when clearly it was not approved by a voice vote), the platform committee angered Muslims and atheists.

It's going to be hard for anybody to top this fiasco.

Well done, I say.

Doesn't the first amendment matter any more? And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem (in fact the better educated ones will realise that they are one of the key factors that work against America as far as foreign relations are concerned).

What does the first amendment have to do with my post?

[puck2]

He wasn't as convincing as when he said that he, "never had sex with that woman", but he was equally as honest about a future with Obama as president.

Oh, what a primitive answer to this captivating speach. I guess Clinton's arguments made you unable for a substantial answer. You answer is like a lubricious hit below the belt, a typical Rep answer.

Of course, election conventions like this have the same goal like commercials. You can never believe all what you hear and see. But his style and expressiviness was worthwile watching it. Yes, his spech is aching if you are a strong Rep follower. The Reps could't deliver the same quality. Imagine Dubaya should have spoken to the Reps (without any teleprompter …. ).

The touched the most importend political points

• working together, not against each other and not for one (money oriented) group in the background
  
• tax; let the rich pay their part for the nation
  
• health care for the benefit of the weak people
  
• future with better infrastructure and ecology
  
• economy
  
• Rep's burdon for the Dems (war, budget deficit....), the origin of so many problems which couldn't be solved within one election period.
  

That he didn't mention Obama's weak points lies in the character of such an political event all over the world.

Hearing this great president talking I had the idea, what a pity that he was prevented from reelection by the constitution. The quality of his speach was Mt. Everest against the Reps Loch Ness, for exmple Clint's.

Edited September 6, 2012 by puck2

[Chicog]

First, when it was announced that God had been taken out of their platform and that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had also been removed, the party offended both Christian and Jewish voters.

What does the first amendment have to do with my post?

Separation of Church and State. Religion should have no part in politics.

[koheesti]

The touched the most importend political points

• working together, not against each other and not for one (money oriented) group in the background
  
• tax; let the rich pay their part for the nation
  

Can we please put this myth out of its misery? "let the rich pay their part"? <deleted>, the top 5% pay just under 60% of all income taxes. The bottom 47& don't pay anything. Even if Obama gets his tax hike on the rich like he wants, it will raise $45 billion - enough to run the gov't about 9 days. Whooptie-f;n-do.

[koheesti]

First, when it was announced that God had been taken out of their platform and that Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had also been removed, the party offended both Christian and Jewish voters.

What does the first amendment have to do with my post?

Separation of Church and State. Religion should have no part in politics.

That's not what it is about. Religion will always be part of politics. The amendment was about the gov't establishing a religion (like happened with the Church of England). Much later it was interpreted to mean a separation of Church and State (government). Which is why Obama can't force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions like he wanted. The protection works both ways.

Edited September 6, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

btw, Factcheck.org rates Clinton's speech pretty factual with only "exaggerations" (otherwise known as "lies" when Republicans make them.

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

[KKvampire]

Bill's sppech 49 minutes full of facts relating to the flaws in the Romney and certainly Ryans so called" savings" in the budget and he highlighted something very important, How exclusive and Vitriol the Republicans have become, Isolating and throwing out Republicans who wanted to co operate with the President, even appointing Repubs in his cabinet. Proving what MCConnell said from the Very beginning "The number one task is to defeat Obama" , So much for putting the future of the USA"number one Task"    Shows the priorities of the right wing rabid party now.

Edited September 6, 2012 by KKvampire

[Ulysses G.]

And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem

Most American support Israel. That is why the democrats had to put Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back in their platform. As usual, with the donkeys, it is all about votes.

[KKvampire]

And what happens to the nose when you tell lies ? It gets as long as the republican elephant

[TheWalkingMan]

And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem

Most American support Israel. That is why the democrats had to put Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back in their platform. As usual, with the donkeys, it is all about votes.

When you say donkeys and about votes, I presume you are referring to all politicians. It is always about votes. Do you know any other US political group when it is not about votes?

[geriatrickid]

Former President Clinton was brilliant. He delivered, a positive message that made all the points that needed to be made and he did it in a non confrontational, factual method that will appeal to those that think. In one word, he killed. This will be seen as he speech that turned the tide of the campaign and put it back on track. He slowly and calmly showed the weaknesses and flaws in teh the Ryan-Romney platform and did it in a non confrontational, kind, polite manner. Of all of the speeches I have ever seen him give, this has to be one of the best of his career. No other past president in the past 40 years has ever delivered like this man.

I can see the cheap shots will come out about the man. Know why? It is simple. It is, because the detractors are unable to rebut the facts that Mr. Clinton provided. Thank you Mr. Clinton for setting the record straight. Thank you Mr. Clinton for reassuring the world that there are still decent rational Americans around and that not everyone is a nasty, mean doctrinaire bully. To those that are full of hate for President Obama and for others, go back and listen to the speech, and see that hating is not productive. The Democrats have a plan and it's been working. Perhaps not as fast as some would like, but it's producing results and cleaning up the mess the Republicans created.

[keemapoot]

And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem

Most American support Israel. That is why the democrats had to put Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back in their platform. As usual, with the donkeys, it is all about votes.

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but the DEMS are the traditional party of choice for Jews in America by a large margin historically. Only in this election cycle have we seen the Republicans move to court the Jewish vote because the Obama administration is reluctant to support recent hard-line Israeli positions on Iran and Palestine.

[Rancid]

Personally I was shocked, was expecting Clinton to come out and nominate Ron Paul.

[Ulysses G.]

And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem

Most American support Israel. That is why the democrats had to put Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back in their platform. As usual, with the donkeys, it is all about votes.

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but the DEMS are the traditional party of choice for Jews in America by a large margin historically. Only in this election cycle have we seen the Republicans move to court the Jewish vote because the Obama administration is reluctant to support recent hard-line Israeli positions on Iran and Palestine.

You mean like Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb? These are not "hard line" positions and the democrats as well as the republicans have agreed on both until recently. The far left have taken over the democrat party very recently.

[keemapoot]

And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem

Most American support Israel. That is why the democrats had to put Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back in their platform. As usual, with the donkeys, it is all about votes.

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but the DEMS are the traditional party of choice for Jews in America by a large margin historically. Only in this election cycle have we seen the Republicans move to court the Jewish vote because the Obama administration is reluctant to support recent hard-line Israeli positions on Iran and Palestine.

You mean like Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb? These are not "hard line" positions and the democrats as well as the republicans have agreed on both until recently. The far left have taken over the democrat party very recently.

So, you're suggesting that after generations of support of Israel by the Democrats, all of a sudden the Republicans are Israel's new best friend forever because Obama doesn't want to rush to war with Iran or support West Bank Settlements, etc.? Are you Israeli or what? BTW, I am not a Democrat.

[Ulysses G.]

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

-Candidate Obama

He has "evolved" on this promise and given passes to all of Iran's best customers from sticking to the sanctions against buying their oli. Support?

[Jingthing]

Hey guys: the topic is about Clinton's FABULOUS speech, yes? Haven't we have had enough middle east conflict related topics? Yes, Obama's enemies are excited over the bad optics of the platform incident, but again, what does that have to do with the CLINTON speech?

[keemapoot]

Good post JT. Yes, back on topic, Clinton's speech was one of the best he ever made, and he looked at the top of his game. IMO, the two best Presidents of my lifetime have been Clinton and Reagan. Go figure.

[Chicog]

And how many Americans really give a toss about Israel or Jerusalem

Most American support Israel. That is why the democrats had to put Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back in their platform. As usual, with the donkeys, it is all about votes.

Oh purlease. Most Americans couldn't point out Israel on a map.