GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine General
Off Topic & Games
For when your thoughts are drifting to things not so movie, or if you're feeling trivially inclined.
591

Obama unites the Dead
Topic by: Vanamonde
Posted: February 3, 2008 - 7:19 AM PST
Last Reply: October 28, 2008 - 9:28 PM PDT

page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next
author topic: Obama unites the Dead
Vanamonde
post #1  on February 3, 2008 - 7:19 AM PST  
I have so been on the fence about Baraka Obama, he sounds so too good to be true, it scares me.

Now, I read that the Grateful Dead will reunite and perform in support of his campaign Monday, just before Super Duper Fat Tuesday.

Whoa. Whoa. Motherloving WHOA!

Any of you lucky peeps in the City gonna make it to the show? Of course, the Dead will play in their hometown, San Fran.

I hope there is a DVD of this show, soon. I am so sure the audio will be on the Net within an hour of the show's closing but it would be nice to see Micky and Phil and Bob and the others. Mmmm, I should be watch YouTube, also

There is NOTHING like a Grateful Dead concert. Only been once, right after Pigpen died.

I do not recall the Dead ever endorsing a President Candidate before. I think Obama has finally got my vote.
Vanamonde
post #2  on February 4, 2008 - 12:09 AM PST  
All sold out - but they will have it webcast at http://www.iclips.net/ about 7:30 PST, Monday, 2/04/08.
doozer
post #3  on February 4, 2008 - 2:00 AM PST  
Not to start a political debate of any kind but I'm all about Baracking the vote. For some reason in elementary school I became very interested in presidential elections, and have followed them closely ever since. Before I turned 18 I was always very upset that I couldn't vote and would try to sway my parents and other adults to vote for who I thought should be president. At my age I've only had the opportunity to vote in two presidential elections and for as long as I can remember it's always been about the lesser of 2 evils. I really like Obama. For the first time I'm actually going to vote FOR somebody as opposed to AGAINST somebody else. I'm very excited to have a reason to care. He's a wonderful speaker as well, his speeches are very evocative. I'm also pleased to see how enthusiastic young voters are to support him. It's good to have a candidate that's getting them (us?) of their (our?) arses and paying attention.

If it helps your perspective at all, I lived in Illinois before he became a senator, and after. I was definitely affected positively by the difference so maybe I'm biased.
hamano
post #4  on February 4, 2008 - 6:26 AM PST  
Whoa, Jerry Garcia looked really BAD! He must have stunk something awful, too, seeing how the other band members forced him to stand at the opposite end of the stage by himself at the pre-concert press conference. But I have to admit, Obama's powers are truly amazing.

As far as who should be prez, I think it looks more and more like it won't make any difference on the Dem side. Clinton and Obama seem pretty interchangeable on the issues that concern me. Since neither has introduced a VP candidate, I'm thinking that there's still a strong possibility of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket (pundits are counting out the possibility of the latter, but who knows?)

I think Clinton will clean up on SuperDuper Tuesday since the Giants won the Superbowl, and she will pick Obama to be her running-mate.
Vanamonde
post #5  on February 4, 2008 - 12:55 PM PST  
> On February 4, 2008 - 6:26 AM PST hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Whoa, Jerry Garcia looked really BAD!
>
d000d! that joke might have worked a bit better if you had waited for the concert to at least start. You are about 13 hours early!

I am wondering who will be played the lead guitar, tonight?!

when it is my time to go jam with Hendrix, I do plan to kick Jerry's butt for messing with the Dark Lady H. But then, what right do I have with my terrible "Lost" addiction?
Vanamonde
post #6  on February 4, 2008 - 8:35 PM PST  
Look like www.iclip.net has melting down from the traffic. The main page will not load now.

Maybe they will archive it for later.

Vanamonde
post #7  on February 5, 2008 - 5:58 AM PST  
Just in case - i was able to get through from work and sneak a peek at the show. It will be reboardcast at 2:30 pm and 7:30 pm PST today.

I appreciate Greencine's indugence here - this seems like an historic day for me. I never imagine the Grateful Dead would actively campaign for ANY candidate.

although I heard that Bill K. (who did not make it) is a Hawaiian Republican now.
KKelleman
post #8  on September 3, 2008 - 7:36 PM PDT  
> On February 4, 2008 - 6:26 AM PST hamano wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Whoa, Jerry Garcia looked really BAD! He must have stunk something awful, too, seeing how the other band members forced him to stand at the opposite end of the stage by himself at the pre-concert press conference. But I have to admit, Obama's powers are truly amazing.
>
> As far as who should be prez, I think it looks more and more like it won't make any difference on the Dem side. Clinton and Obama seem pretty interchangeable on the issues that concern me. Since neither has introduced a VP candidate, I'm thinking that there's still a strong possibility of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket (pundits are counting out the possibility of the latter, but who knows?)
>
> I think Clinton will clean up on SuperDuper Tuesday since the Giants won the Superbowl, and she will pick Obama to be her running-mate.
> ---------------------------------

Looks like you were way off.lol
kaream
post #9  on September 3, 2008 - 10:27 PM PDT  
> On September 3, 2008 - 7:36 PM PDT KKelleman wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On February 4, 2008 - 6:26 AM PST hamano wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > As far as who should be prez, I think it looks more and more like it won't make any difference on the Dem side. Clinton and Obama seem pretty interchangeable on the issues that concern me. Since neither has introduced a VP candidate, I'm thinking that there's still a strong possibility of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket (pundits are counting out the possibility of the latter, but who knows?)
> >
> > I think Clinton will clean up on SuperDuper Tuesday since the Giants won the Superbowl, and she will pick Obama to be her running-mate.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> Looks like you were way off.lol
> ---------------------------------

Well, with hamano having stuck his neck out and got it chopped off, I'll volunteer to go next. I call it 55% McCain/Palin, 45% Obama/Biden. The main reason is that McCain is going to collect 95% of the undecided vote, where the choice is finally made in the voting booth with pencil in hand. And besides, we haven't even seen yet what kind of October Surprise Dick Cheney is going to come up with. Obama would need at least a 10%-15% spread at this point to be able to pull it off.

Frankly, I've never understood the undecided, 'independent', vote. Or rather, I do understand it, but it doesn't make any sense. The whole problem in any presidential election is that you're never just voting for the person at the top of the ticket, you're voting for an entire administration, and the party they represent, and the overall philosophy of that party that they bring into office with them. This is unavoidable. You may not particularly like the specific nominee, but if your thinking is generally more in alignment with one party over the other, hold your nose if necessary as you vote. Clinton filled his administrations with Democrat-thinking Democrats, Bush filled his with GOP-thinking Republicans -- and there was a BIG difference.

And never forget the Supreme Court. There will be anywhere from one to three vacancies coming up in the next few years -- so do you want more like Scalia/ Thomas/ Roberts/ Alito, or more like Stevens/ Ginsberg/ Souter/ Breyer? This will make a difference into your grandchildren's generation and beyond.

I'm not gonna tell ya who I'm voting for -- but you just might want to think about this: at McCain's age, there's close to a 50% chance of his becoming unable to serve out his term with all faculties intact, so it might be wise to take a good hard look at who Sarah Palin is.
underdog
post #10  on September 4, 2008 - 8:55 AM PDT  

>
> Well, with hamano having stuck his neck out and got it chopped off, I'll volunteer to go next. I call it 55% McCain/Palin, 45% Obama/Biden. The main reason is that McCain is going to collect 95% of the undecided vote, where the choice is finally made in the voting booth with pencil in hand. And besides, we haven't even seen yet what kind of October Surprise Dick Cheney is going to come up with. Obama would need at least a 10%-15% spread at this point to be able to pull it off.
>

How do you figure the 95% number? That seems rather high to me...

Here's an anecdote that might be irrelevant, but interesting. My g/f's dad is a longtime republican/conservative (it was very hard for him to say, "Bush just isn't doing a very good job" but he finally did). He doesn't like or trust McCain very much and said while he wouldn't vote for Clinton he would definitely vote for Obama. We'll see if he actually follows through with that. But given the dissatisfaction a number of independents polled feel about the state of the union, it's hard to imagine that high a number of them voting more status quo right now, imho. We'll see. Your comment about Palin at the end is an important one -- I wonder how that will affect the undecideds and those who worry about the competence and diplomacy of our leadership in these scary times. It may backfire on the GOP. We'll see.
NLee
post #11  on September 4, 2008 - 9:51 AM PDT  
> On September 3, 2008 - 10:27 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I'm not gonna tell ya who I'm voting for -- but you just might want to think about this: at McCain's age, there's close to a 50% chance of his becoming unable to serve out his term with all faculties intact, so it might be wise to take a good hard look at who Sarah Palin is.
> ---------------------------------

Well, the way I look at it: either you vote for

(A) a Presidential candidate who claims to be an Washington outsider that calls for CHANGE, is inexperienced and heardly qualified to lead, but brings with him a VP who is a seasoned Washington insider to actually get things done,

or

(B) The other way round.


"Let's get out and vote! Let's make our voices heard!
We've been given the right to choose, Between a douche and a turd.
It's democracy in action, Put your freedom to the test,
A big fat turd or a stupid douche, Which do you like best?"


[Southpark episode #119]
underdog
post #12  on September 4, 2008 - 10:00 AM PDT  
Female Clinton Supporters in Focus Group See Talent, Mudslinging in Palin's Speech
Nenufar
post #13  on September 4, 2008 - 10:04 AM PDT  
> On September 4, 2008 - 9:51 AM PDT NLee wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On September 3, 2008 - 10:27 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > I'm not gonna tell ya who I'm voting for -- but you just might want to think about this: at McCain's age, there's close to a 50% chance of his becoming unable to serve out his term with all faculties intact, so it might be wise to take a good hard look at who Sarah Palin is.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> Well, the way I look at it: either you vote for
>
> (A) a Presidential candidate who claims to be an Washington outsider that calls for CHANGE, is inexperienced and heardly qualified to lead, but brings with him a VP who is a seasoned Washington insider to actually get things done,
>

The thing is, Obama is not as inexperienced as the other side would have you believe. And if you read through Palin's speech and then look at the actual facts vs. what she said, you'll see that even more. She denigrated his community organizing experience but compare that to her "mayoral reign" and I'd take the former. She also criticized him for not passing any legislation but this is factually incorrect. See the above link for more distortions. Plus, McCain has experience but there is something kind of disturbing about him, and it's hard to know where he stands these days.
kaream
post #14  on September 4, 2008 - 10:15 AM PDT  
> On September 4, 2008 - 8:55 AM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> How do you figure the 95% number? That seems rather high to me...
> ---------------------------------

You're right; probably somewhere around 80% is more like it. My reasoning is that last-minute undecideds -- and there are always a lot more of them than would imaginable -- don't make rational choices, but rely on their gut to tell them who they're more 'comfortable' with -- or less uncomfortable. I think these are the main factors that will affect that irrational comfort zone:

--McCain is seen as being a 'tested leader'.
--This stupid Georgia business might well escalate further and get a lot nastier by Nov 4, especially if Cheney has anything further to do with it than he's already precipitating with his bear-baiting. (Think back to just a few months ago when Bush immediately recognized Kosovo's independence, to the deep dismay and anger of both Serbia and Russia. The situations in Kosovo and South Ossetia/ Abkhazia aren't exactly identical, but they're close. The issue in all three is territorial integrity vs. ethnic aspirations. I'm convinced that Saakashvili would never have launched his destructive invasion of S Ossetia without at least some whispered encouragement from Washington. Russia was basically put in a position where they pretty much had to respond in some manner, but not necessarily as strongly as they have.)
--People not only lie to pollsters about their true feelings, they also lie to themselves about their prejudices or lack thereof. A lot of 'undecided' voters are going to have a very hard time making that check mark by Obama's name, and they're just not going to do it. Especially when they're still not convinced about "Muslim Barack Hussein Osama bin Biden".

Another separate factor that skews the polling data we're seeing now is that for all the enthusiasm of Obama's multitudes of youthful voters, the fact remains that younger people are simply never as dedicated to actually getting out on election day and marking a ballot as boomers and geezers are. We've seen this "rock the vote" hype before, too many times.
Catullus
post #15  on September 4, 2008 - 1:03 PM PDT  
I think democrats could win even no matter who they put up as a candidate just because even the staunchest poor republicans from the south cant afford 4 more years of these bastages in office.

And by cant afford I mean their pocketbooks cant. I think at this point the people losing their houses are more worried about that than terrorists lol.
kaream
post #16  on September 5, 2008 - 1:05 AM PDT  
NLee, I trust your A-B sillyjism was meant to be as flippant as your Southpark quote; because if not, it fails.

I'm with Nenufar on this one (and thanks for that good link you posted).

First, in nearly every presidency, with the stunningly obvious exception of the present one, the office of VP is, as Cactus Jack Garner put it, "not worth a pitcher of warm piss." The only real functions of a VP are to help get the presidential candidate elected, and also to attend funerals -- barring presidential disability or death.

Obama went first. He picked Biden 1) to shore up his foreign policy credentials and thus 2) help him get elected, but also because 3) he likes and respects Biden and intends to work closely with him, and 4) will expect Biden's much deeper sense of the intricacies of Congress to help him with his legislative programs.

In contrast, McCain is very much his own man, temperamentally and philosophically, and a loner. He's basically an old-guard Goldwater conservative, but goes his own way. If you want to know what he's about, go back and look at his 2000 campaign, when he was running as himself. He's never been a neocon or a Jesus-freak, and he has nothing but contempt for the crazy wing of the Republican party. He has no intention of having Sarah Palin or any other VP peering over his shoulder. But he does want to get elected, and he's learned that to do that he's got to kiss ass and hold hands with those people, to keep them from sitting out the election. Palin represents the furthest extreme of the party -- Phyllis Schlafly was drooling over her. McCain is not going to run for reelection, and he will never need these people again.

'Experience' is not unimportant in a president, but it's nowhere near as important as it's being made out to be. We've had many good presidents with virtually no prior experience -- Kennedy had a few more years in Congress than Obama, and was younger, but was widely considered a lightweight goof-off whose daddy bought his elections -- and many poor ones with extensive resumes in government, such as Buchanan.

What's scary is that McCain really is getting old. When he said that Iran was responsible for Al-Qaida working in Iraq, and had to be corrected by Lieberman, that was no slip of the tongue -- he was honestly confused. Personally I don't have much of a problem with cynical moves per se, such as McCain's selection of Palin, but I have to say I would have a hell of a problem with her in charge of the country if it should come to that.

-------------------------------------------------
(I'm trying hard to be impartial here -- I don't know if my preference is showing through or not, but I'm going back on my previous statement about not telling. I've never yet failed to vote, and I've voted for exactly two Republicans in my life: once for mayor, running against a blatant crook, and once for DA, running against a hopeless incompetent. And I'll be voting proudly for Obama.) (My apologies to admirers of Phyllis Schlafly.)
Cinenaut
post #17  on September 5, 2008 - 9:05 AM PDT  
Wow, McCain was really reaching out to the independents last night, wasn't he. No wonder he picked a right-wing VP. That speech probably did not please some hardcore Republicans at all.

After the speech, the Republicans played the Heart song Barracuda. "Barracuda" was Sarah Palin's nickname in high school. It cracked me up, because that song was written about unpleasant experiences the Wilson sisters had had with record industry execs, including lines like:

So this ain't the end
I saw you again today
Had to turn my heart away You smiled like the Sun
Kisses for everyone And tales
it never fails!
You lying so low in the weeds
Bet you gonna ambush me
You'd have me down on my knees
Wouldn't you, Barracuda?


and...

If the real thing don't do the trick
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn it out to the wick Aren't you, Barracuda?


Hehe. I wonder if anybody else picked up on that?

The other thing that amuses/scares me is that Sarah Palin's husband is jokingly calling himself the "First Dude." Um, wouldn't Palin have to be president for him to be First Dude?

Cinenaut
post #18  on September 5, 2008 - 9:15 AM PDT  
Oh, answering my own question, Nancy Wilson noticed:

"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song "Barracuda" no longer be used to promote her image. The song "Barracuda" was written in the late '70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The "barracuda" represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

Bwahahaha!
Catullus
post #19  on September 5, 2008 - 4:11 PM PDT  
the only interesting part of mccain winning is that I think its very likely to be the cause of the first female president.

Mccain is so old I am thinking that its more likely he will die of some age related illness before the 4 years is up than not.
underdog
post #20  on September 5, 2008 - 4:15 PM PDT  
> On September 5, 2008 - 4:11 PM PDT Catullus wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> the only interesting part of mccain winning is that I think its very likely to be the cause of the first female president.
>
> Mccain is so old I am thinking that its more likely he will die of some age related illness before the 4 years is up than not.
> ---------------------------------

Actually, I think the age per se is less a worry (heck, my dad just turned 70 and is in great health, knock on wood, lots of energy), than his health at that age. He's had numerous health issues over the years, and it's that combined with his age that makes it a worry. Oh well, at least he chose a well-qualified candidate to be second in command.
page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.