Home > Uncategorized > President Obama’s election eve campaign speech in Iowa

President Obama’s election eve campaign speech in Iowa

…and you welcomed me and Michelle into your homes and you picked us up when we needed a lift and your faith gave me new hope for the country’s future. And your stories filled me with resolve… to fight for you every single day I set foot in the oval office. You inspired us.

  1. Anonymous
    November 6, 2012 at 7:57 am

    God forbid he is reelected. If he is it will be a big step towards the final end of America as we know it. The moochers & parasites will have won and we will all regret it.

  2. November 6, 2012 at 8:44 am

    Thanks, Anonymous. We all now know that there is at least one person somewhere connected to the internet who does not want the President reelected. Your argument is well-thought-out, too: (1) it will be a big step towards the final end of America as we know it, therefore (2) the moochers and parasites will have won and (3) we will all regret it.

    Herald readers, be sure to vote accordingly.

    And please remember, the well-marketed lie that “they’re all the same” benefits the right. The differences between the two mainstream candidates for President have never been as clear and wide as this year. They differ on economic issues like whether there should be further stimulus, they differ on women’s reproductive rights, they differ on gay rights, they differ on military funding. And one candidate, Mitt Romney, has consistently lied throughout this campaign, to an extent never seen in a modern Presidential campaign.

  3. Plain Jane
    November 6, 2012 at 8:56 am

    A crystal clear choice, Mitch.

  4. Silver Satchel
    November 6, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Yes, the choice is crystal clear. Both candidates are puppets…..

  5. November 6, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers cackle with joy every time someone claims that, Silver Satchel.

    If you don’t see any important differences between an Obama administration and a Romney administration — on women’s rights, gay rights, the economy, medical care for the middle class and poor, student loans, and whether we end up at war — you’re either blind or haven’t been looking.

    Are they both constrained by the need to keep powerful and wealthy people happy? Yes. So is every politician who wants money in order to campaign, so that they can actually get elected and affect the way the government operates.

    Are the just the same? Not on your life.

  6. anonymous
    November 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Hey HERALDO, Why didn’t you let everyone know about the other party candidates and the third party debate. Two party Regime…

  7. Silver Satchel
    November 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    What has Obama done for gays? I need to know specifics….because I’m not gay. You understand. Oh and what has Obama done to make our economy better (47 million of food stamps)? You do understand that Obama care is Romney care, right? Our middle class has been decimated, student loan debt burdens has surpassed credit card debt, I wish I could spend more time here, but my three month old baby wants some milk…so have a good rest of the election day. I also want some specifics on how Obama has helped women. Did he sign a bill giving women and gays more rights, or freedoms, or something? Time for daddy to feed his baby…… Both are puppets…

  8. November 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm
  9. Silver Satchel
    November 6, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    The Obama is a peace lover fallacy ; How many innocent babies and children have died in these strikes? How many innocent husbands, and wives ? Go ahead and admire a killer, i sure as hell will not.


  10. November 6, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Your map points to 300 strikes in Pakistan, not all of which were from the Obama administration. Let’s say each one has killed 10 innocent people — that seems unlikely to me, but let’s just say. That’s 3000 innocent people who have died in Pakistan.

    Here’s the Iraq body count: iraqbodycount.org . It documents at least 109,000 civilian deaths resulting from our invasion of Iraq.

    But the more important difference is that Pakistan is the place where the people who have proven their willingness to kill American civilians by the thousands actually live. Iraq was just a country that Bush wanted to invade.

    So, the comparison is between at least 109,000 civilian deaths in a country that meant us no harm, versus a maximum conceivable number of 3,000 innocents in a country that is hosting terrorists that want to kill as many civilian Americans as they possibly can, and who have already demonstrated their willingness to kill in the thousands.

    “tra,” a commenter here, made the point the other day that some people’s moral framework relies on intent. Well, if a murderer had just broken into a room that has a nuclear bomb launch button and I had a gun, I’d shoot them. Intentionally. So would you, I’d hope. In fact, we demand that behavior from police every day. We do not want police officers that will save their purity by not shooting a criminal that is holding a roomful of hostages, on the grounds that killing is wrong.

    So the question is how far away from the knife-edge are you still willing to use lethal force to protect the people you are sworn to protect. Answering that horrible question is part of the job of a President. I’m glad it’s not mine, I’m glad it will never be Mitt Romney’s, I’m glad it’s in President Obama’s hands, because I think he’s done an extraordinary job.

  11. Plain Jane
    November 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Well said, Mitch. And there are bombs going off around the world almost every day. Yesterday 24 Iraqis were killed by a suicide car bomber. As I said above, I trust President Obama to be judicious and pragmatic in his use of force. I certainly wouldn’t want someone Fred would approve of in charge of protecting this country.

  12. Silver Satchel
    November 6, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    So these drone strikes are for our greater good? And hell, just a few innocent lost for that greater good….it’s all good. Your glorious leader is a killer. It’s a hard pill to swallow……

  13. November 6, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Silver Satchel,

    I’ve already swallowed that pill long ago, SS. Unfortunately, sometimes a leader needs to choose from among a menu of unappealing options. I think the President has done that well.

    This is an empire, SS. Empires kill people. This is also the country with, by far, the largest military in the world, and it has historically used its military on behalf of a set of Western corporations and their wealthy owners, getting us — among other things — all the oil that was “mistakenly placed under other people’s land.”

    President Obama is trying to extract us from that situation with as little pain as possible for us and for the world, but one man cannot reverse more than a century of history. To blame him for starting from where we are, rather than where you’d like us to be, seems short-sighted to me.

    Sure, there are lots of noble sounding people who say all the right things. You’ll notice that they don’t get elected — ever. President Obama is someone who has apparently decided that you need to be elected to change the government. Sounds sensible to me, but others will disagree.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s