<p>So title says it all. What did you think of Obama's speech (and the entire democratic national convention as a whole)?</p>
<p>I think he did a good job, and addressed specific issues quite nicely. </p>
<p>The convention overall left me with a sense that the democrats are sincere about their plans to improve America and firmly secured my belief that Obama is light years ahead McCain. </p>
<p>So, how about you all?</p>
<p>I think it was perfect, God-like indeed. Obama took the fight to McCain, bashed him hard over the head (without being too negative or attacking his character) and laid out clear, solid plans for his presidency. Obama also displayed himself as growing up working-class which is integral towards diffusing this "celebrity image" McCain has painted. Frankly, I've been wanting Obama to go on the offensive against McCain which he hasn't been able to do as effectively before (probably because McCain being a POW makes it trickier to attack him without appearing offensive). I hope for more assaults that tie McCain closer to Bush. Indeed I'm relishing at the thought of an Obama Presidency. I think the whole DNC did what it was supposed to do. It gave deference to the Clinton's (Bill is the Regan of the Democratic Party) defined Obama and showed that he is ready to be President. There were no apparent mistakes I saw, (like those made when Obama picked Biden). There was no protest from the die-hard Clinton supporters. At this point, I personally would be flabbergasted at this point if McCain won the election.</p>
<p>Obama did an excellent job.</p>
<p>It made me hope more than ever that Obama wins...</p>
<p>My favorite line:</p>
<p>"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."</p>
<p>Barack did an AMAZING job!!</p>
<p>Ive watched it 3 times and found it quite boring and entertaining, It defiantly could have been better.</p>
<p>^LOL...you thought THAT was boring, wait 'til you hear McCain!</p>
<p>well Ive heard better speeches given by both Obama and McCain. McCain's last big speech was actually incredibly good, it surpassed Obamas acceptance speech.</p>
<p>I didn't listen to it.</p>
<p>When he makes a speech, from my view, he talks at/down to people.</p>
<p>In contrast, Hillary/McCain talk to people.</p>
<p>I mean, when Obama's off the teleprompter and actually talking to someone, he's more real...</p>
<p>Oh yeah, he's terrible when being questioned randomly.</p>
<p>Sorry for the ramblings. I can't believe 38M watched his, what, 10M more than Hillary's?</p>
<p>Anyway</p>
<p>Vote for McCain-Palin, a ticket of people that have gotten things done, and have defied their own party for the sake of the people :D</p>
<p>Well you can't learn if you keep your eyes closed and your ears plugged. Maybe you'd learn something if you had watched it.</p>
<p>He'd make it easier if he didn't speak like his audience was a bunch of fawning idiots... Well he's stopped the hope and change act</p>
<p>And now onto George Bush sucks. Sorry, tell me why I want to vote for Barack. And talk to me.</p>
<p>"Well you can't learn if you keep your eyes closed and your ears plugged. Maybe you'd learn something if you had watched it."</p>
<p>Wait, what? Maybe he listened to other Barack speeches...?</p>
<p>I thought it was fine. But I was actually somewhat bored. A few of his other ones were better, especially the one at his WA rally.</p>
<p>I thought that he should have focused more on the historic nature of his acceptance and the legacy that had been fulfilled. I didn't really see any of that, and I would have connected WAY more with the speech had it not been about how terrible McCain was. I wanted to hear about HIM. And given that he's been accusing McCain of focusing too much on Obama's faults, I'm surprised that he wasted an opportunity to show everyone that he was actually different.</p>
<p>Plus, there were a few totally inaccurate statements, such as when he claimed that McCain defined the middle-class as making less than 5 mil. That's NOT what McCain said at all, even when you stretch it like Silly Putty.</p>
<p>Oh he said 5 million a year was the cutoff for rich. If you're not rich you're middle class or low class How was that a stretch?</p>
<p>Yeah, that's right. So why did Obama not say that?</p>
<p>Not rich and not poor =/= middle-class.</p>
<p>The upper-middle class is a completely separate category, and it's a legitimate one. I'm sorry, rich =/= 250k+ a year.</p>
<p>Are you crazy? So someone making 4 million dollars a year is not rich??? So would you say that Obama is not rich, as he only made 4.2 million dollars a year last year (the highest he's ever made in a year)? Lol, I think most people think 250k/yr or more is considered rich or at least A LOT closer to what most people would define as rich. Though, I don't know where you live...but I live in one of the wealthiest places in the nation (save the Bay Area) and I even think that 250k/yr is rich.</p>
<p>I live in one of the wealthiest places in the nation, where there are tons of millionaires. I haven't seen a house go for less than 1 million in my neighborhood and the surrounding area in over a year, and we're not wealthy. Trust me.</p>
<p>That being said, millionaires are so commonplace in this area that being one isn't impressive. Let's just say I live in an area with tons of Microsoft execs, Boeing execs, etc. that populate the entire city. </p>
<p>So, our perspectives are different, yes? I think that the president needs to reach out to the middle class and poor voters. Not just for votes, but in terms of actual policies as well.</p>
<p>However, I broadly define middle class as 50 or 70k-125k. Above that is upper-middle class, and 1 mil+ is wealthy. But because there are so many of the latter people, I introduce a new category: Rich.</p>
<p>So many of the latter people....uh yeah. Only 1% of the people in this country make 350,000 or more per year and 1.5% of all people make 250,000 or more per year. I can't imagine it being higher than .1% of the people in this country make 1 million per year (standard deviation curve here). We both know even less make 5 million (<<<.1%) per year. To have this make sense in SAT terms (with percentiles), you would call someone with a SAT score of 2150 (top 1.5%) upper-middle smart? And someone with a 2200 (top 1%) upper-middle smart? And that basically only people who make over a 2350 (top .1%) are smart? And that basically only people who made a 2400 (<<<.1%) really smart? We both got over a 2350 on the SATs Baelor, but we both know we'd be ignorant in the extreme to allude that.</p>
<p>Income</a> in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>^ Flawed example, but I'll bite.</p>
<p>^How many make 50-125k?</p>
<p>I'd guess only the 50th-10th percentile make 50-125k. That's like, on SAT terms (1500-1900) Very broad spectrum. And, Baelor, you don't want to go down that path. You really don't. I consider those making over 250k a year rich like almost everyone else.</p>