Aug28 Obama Acceptance Speech Drinking Game
I’m watching Obama’s acceptance speech as I type. I may write up some real commentary once the transcripts are up. In the meantime, however, I can’t resist, even though I can’t and don’t yet drink. I’m sure it’s been done before, but here we go.
Take a drink every time:
- Obama says, “Thank You,” while waiting for the crowd to quiet down.
- The word, “change,” is uttered.
- George Bush is mentioned.
- The phrase, “Now is the time,” or, “This is the moment,” is used.
- John McCain is mentioned.
- He uses the phrase, “The politics of the past.”
- The word, “hope,” is used.
Oh my. Did he seriously just say, “If you don’t have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone you should run from?”
Was that a general statement or was he referring to a specific case?
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm in Politics. You can subscribe to the comment feed to follow replies or leave a trackback from your own site.
Kelly says...
Oh my. Did he seriously just say, “If you don’t have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone you should run from?”
YES, he DID! HAHA. Can you believe this joker is actually on the ballot? What’s worse is that people believe the empty words he spews.
Aug. 31st, 2008
Caden says...
Obama talks about hope and change a lot because that’s what is needed for this country; not the same politics of the past. I prefer Obama’s talk of hope and change and bettering this country to McCain’s constant attacks on Obama. Instead of talking about what HE has plans to do, McCain just attacks Obama. Could that be because he doesn’t have any actual plans of how he’s going to implement “his” ideas? I think so.
Plus, he solidified my belief that he’s a moron with his VP choice - an obvious attempt to bring in women voters except that Palin is pretty much anti-women’s rights. I sincerely think having McCain/Palin in office will set back women’s rights about 20 years (and I’m not only talking about abortion here because when it comes down to it, I’m probably pro-life except that I think there should be exceptions - unlike Palin). It’s absurd.
I’m glad that people are listening to Obama and starting to believe that change can happen. In fact, it can’t happen soon enough. The U.S. needs change and so does the world.
Sep. 6th, 2008
Shawna says...
RE: Caden’s comment
We do need change in this country. Obama talks a lot about change, yet he hasn’t changed much during his three-and-a-half years as a United States Senator. Perhaps he would have accomplished more had he not spent more than one-third of that time on the campaign trail. In addition, hope is not an issue in this campaign. It’s very clear that both candidates have hope for America’s future. Their differences lie in the real issues: the economy, education, health care, and energy. One can talk all day long about hope and change and sound very inspiring. Such speeches may give people hope, but they don’t accomplish change.
The claim that McCain has done nothing but attack Obama is factually wrong. Both campaigns have put out ads which compare the views of the two candidates. Several of those ads could’ve been viewed as attacks on both sides. Contrasting plans, viewpoints and voting records is an effective campaigning tactic, and that happens to be a popular tactic in American politics. I doubt there’s ever been a campaign in the history of our country which abstained from this practice. Perhaps it’s not desirable. But even so, the facts remain as they are. Obama talks about deviating from the politics of the past, but he’s produced so-called attack ads, just as McCain has. Furthermore, McCain has articulated his ideas to audiences all over the country, and on Thursday night he articulated them nationally. Obama also articulated his ideas nationally at the Democratic National Convention. Both candidates mentioned their opponent. In fact, Obama mentioned his opponent even more than McCain did. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with such comparisons. That’s politics.
Now, on Palin: First of all, how is she anti-women’s rights? Secondly, even from an objective view, Palin was a brilliant move strategically by the McCain campaign. McCain had a problem. While plenty of center leaning Republicans and independents liked him, the conservative base of the party was not pleased when he won the nomination. Palin, however, is a conservative. McCain needed a conservative to shore up his base, but he also needed to prove that he was a ‘maverick’, as he likes to tout. After Obama made a pick which went against his message of change—Joe Biden is an old, Washington insider who has been there longer than McCain—McCain knew he could highlight this hypocrisy with a truly different candidate. Thus we have Palin, a women who has energized conservatives like nobody’s business, is being touted as the future of conservatism, has an eighty-percent approval rating, and yes, is appealing to some disgruntled Clinton supporters and to many women in general. That does not sound like a move made by a moron to me, especially taking into account the bump he’s gotten in the polls and the flood of donations coming in to his campaign. As for the claim that it would set back women’s rights twenty years (to 1988?) if this ticket is the ticket which elects the first ever female Vice President… well, I merely find that ironic.
It is true that this country needs change, as does the world. The question remains: what specific change? And who can accomplish it? I do not believe that the answer to that question lies in Barack Obama.
Sep. 6th, 2008