That's the number that watched Senator Obama's speech on TV according to some
folks who'd know:
Nielsen Media Research said more people watched Obama speak than watched the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, the final "American Idol" or the Academy Awards this year. Obama talked before a live audience of 80,000 people in Denver.
In fact:
Obama's audience might be higher, since Nielsen didn't have an estimate for how many people watched Obama on PBS or C-SPAN Thursday night.
I cant't wait to see how many people tune in to watch Senator McCain's speech.
26 comments:
Nielsen also probably doen't count 2PJ-TV, which is where I watched it this morning. And it was one hell of a speech. His inclusion of "safe nuclear power" in the discussion of energy may have just closed the deal for me. Win or lose, I'm now confident that Obama could be one hell of a good President. But I'll let McCain-Palin have their little convention first, and see what (if anything) they have to say.
McCain had a speech? lol
====
Both McCain (Bush) and Obama want nuclear power. I think it's a good short term solution, but it still creates nuclear waste. Geothermal, solar, wind, and tidal are all extremely clean.
Nat gas is cleaner than oil and coal, but still emits pollution.
=====
BTW, the US gets only a small amount of oil from the Middle East. Most of the oil we inport comes from Canada and the Gulf.
correction *import*
Isn't McCain's acceptance speech opposite the first NFL game?
Guess what most people will be watching?
You are correct, Mike.
Good planning on the Republican's part, eh?
So far, Jack Cafferty has got the best comment on the events of the week:
"Democrats had a great convention, and now they get Christmas. This is a joke." (h/t Hunter @ DK)
John K: Lots of people stop to look at car wrecks. Hey, free rock concert, what the heck, I might have gone also. Pirates attract a full house on rock concert night also. Doesn't mean they support the team. LMAO And he got a 4 point bounce from all that. 4 points LOL which McCain recovered the next afternoon. LMAO
John K: Now who in here was the foolish person, and we all know who that was, that claimed I lied and Palin had not been to Iraq? Turn to page A4 of the Sat. trib for verification that I am once again oh so right. Apology accepted. Difference is her ego is so well grounded she did not need the entire press corps to accompany her. I bet she even visited the wounded troops. Obama played basketball instead. LOL LOL we know where his priorities are.
John K: Speaker Pelosi has invested between $50 to $100 grand in T. Boone Pickens' wind energy company. She won't disclose the exact amount. T. Bonne Pickens has stated his company is not viable if gas remains below $4 a gallon. Now who is it that refuses to open up drilling. Which of course would lower the cost of gas. You're right. Gee, ain't you liberals smart. The best part is Pelosi thinks people do not the difference between the basis of an investment and the return on the investment. She is right if she is talking to liberals. But the rest of us do know what a dividend is. And of course T. Boone knows fully well the future energy profits lie in alternative energy. Patents etc for carbon based energy are about exhausted. The money is in the technology, not the energy. And now Pelosi is postioned to receive a huge return on that technology provided she can hold gas above $4 a gallon. Did you left wingers think we would not find this out. LOL LOL LMAO OH YAH! 10 years LMAO LMAO Just make it up eh lefties.
I just spent fifteen minutes siftig online, first on the Trib website then through Google. Palin visited Kuwait, in the "Iraq Theatre of Operations". That's where the Alaskan National Guard unit was, so it makes since that she went there. But Kuwait is not Iraq. If you have a Trib link, Jonk K, post it. But all I saw I the Trib were repeated refeences to Sarah Palin's osn going to Iraq.
John K: Look harder Ed Heath. This is getting old doing your research for you. The Iraqi pictures ran on the cable news on Friday. FOX and CNN
It's kind of hysterical to listen to wingers argue against the popularity of a candidate.
You know, dear wingers, the goal is to get more votes, so assailing a candidate's popularity because he can draw 84,000 people to listen to a speech and 38,000,000 million viewers to watch that speech is rather pathetic.
On another note, here's what some papers are saying about Palin's selection:
Anchorage Daily News:
"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
Juneau Empire:
She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it!
"I think in Ketchikan, there's still quite a bit of concern about the Palin administration," said Mayor Bob Weinstein. "Number one, we don't think we're nowhere. And number two, when she campaigned in Ketchikan, she was supportive of the project."
Kansas City Star:
"But as this newspaper noted earlier this week, the most important question in evaluating a vice-presidential pick is whether that person is prepared to step into the Oval Office.
"Palin, with no national political experience and only a couple years in the Alaska governor’s office, is a very tough sell for the Republicans on that score. McCain’s age — he turned 72 on Friday — certainly doesn’t help."
Dallas Morning News:
"This is the person Mr. McCain, 72, would install a heartbeat away from the presidency. The Palin pick means the Republicans have ceded the high ground on the experience issue."
Journal News:
"I've got a message for McCain: Hillaryites didn't want a woman; they wanted that woman. If this is his attempt at wooing disaffected Hillary backers, he has sold all women short."
That's just a few. Booman has compiled a whole lot more here.
No, John K., learn to back up what you say with evidence and links.
Ed visited the Trib. He looked for what you said was there. And guess what? It wasn't there.
Now, what is it, John? Is it what the Trib said or are you making presumptions based on photos of her visit to Kuwait?
If you're going to make a claim, the impetus is on YOU to back it up with evidence.
No one is under any obligation to take your word.
Maybe our resident wingers can answer this for me.
Why is Rush Limbaugh playing politics with Palin's special needs child? Does he think that's fair game?
Personally, I find it disgusting. But it just goes to show that nothing is sacred to conservatives. If they think they can score cheap political points by exploiting an infant with downs syndrome, they'd better think again.
Re: To the left's response/reaction to Sarah Palin...
I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
I sense despairation. Can you say "buyer's remorse"? See, I knew you could.
(Plus, Palin is a hottie... Ooolalala... unlike Canckles, who must be livid that Obama passed her over. LMAO.)
Hahaha!
Hardly, KGC.
But, see, here's why you Republicans/conservatives can't make this work for you:
In one fell stroke, you, KGC, reaffirm the sexism that conservatives are known for.
First, what's this have to do with Palin's attractiveness? Former Clinton supporters and women in general are gonna love the fact that the right is referring to her as a "hottie." "Who cares how qualified she is, she's hot!"
Yeah, that little tactic is going to fall FLAT with female voters, who, and maybe you conservatives should look into this, are not stupid; they don't want to be seen as sex objects.
Great move, KGC! Twit.
Second, if you're going to insult Clinton by referring to her as "Cankles," how exactly does that help Palin appeal to those voters? You can't break that glass ceiling by, again, reaffirming the sexist views of wingers by making this about attractiveness.
That's really going to fall FLAT with women. I mean, KGC, you're saying that Palin's "hotness"(who the hell is she, Paris Hilton or a VP candidate?) is MORE IMPORTANT than Hillary's experience and lifetime fighting for the rights and issues that matter to women.
And in case you missed it, both Hillary and Bill fully endorsed Obama. In fact, the right has probably just guaranteed that Hillary will work even harder to defeat John McCain.
No, I'm afraid KGC that you're doing a terrible job reading the opposition.
We Democrats are very excited. We had an excellent week and we're looking forward to each and every day from now until the election.
Desperation? Well, the fact that John McCain is now playing on our terms is a pretty good sign of just exactly what's going on.
McCain has taken the experience issue off the table. He's trying to portray himself as a change candidate. All the work his campaign did in assailing Obama over the last few weeks has been undone by the selection of someone with no national political experience, whose political career pales in comparison to Obama's and Biden's.
My side is ecstatic; your side, KGC, is still trying to convince themselves that McCain knows what he's doing.
As for the reaction from the left - this is what happens when you pick an unknown. McCain's campaign is going to have to work overtime to define who Palin is. I do not envy that task.
John K: Bill Maher said it looked like MSNBC (Olbermouth and Matthews)wanted to have sex with Obama. LOL LOL LOL LMAO even the left wing kooks realize how stupid those two look. LOL
John K: Biden said Obama does have the foreign policy experience to be President. Biden has criticized Obama more than McCain has. That is what makes Jaywillie so amusing. LOL Jaywillie, you interested in joining Olbermouth and Matthews in having sex with Obama. LOL
John K: This is so much fun watching you left wing kooks go into spasms trying to deflate Palin. McCain made a brillaint move. He took all the air out of Obama. And it is just so much fun watching you lefties try to trash her. After all, she is a pro life feminist. LOL
John K: On a more serious note you liberals make no sense. You should be applauding this nomination. You wanted Obama to pick a woman, he did not. Republicans reached into the mix and pulled a qualified woman and elevated her and gave her a chance. Obama went with a person who is more a DC insider than McCain ever was. Palin has fought corruption within the Republican party. You liberals demand we do the same. Palin has management experience. Way more than Obama (who has none) and Biden (who has extremely little). She calls herself a feminist. Something every lesbian on MSNBC says of themselves. In short, Palin has all the qualifications that you left wingers demand. But you are so sick, you can't see beyond hate. This is sad. A pro life feminist who happens to also be a Republican is denounced by you left wingers for political gain. Like Limbaugh says, for the left, that is what it is all about. Power. By the way, when did Obama ever reach across the aisle. Can we say McCain - Feingold. Or even Lieberman endorsing McCain.
Keep spinnin', John K.
I guess we can start pulling up all the things Republicans say about McCain...and there's plenty!
First, Democrats have congratulated Palin on her historic nomination. It's about time the Republican Party caught up(it only took you guys a quarter of a century longer than it took us). Of course, while Democrats have been fighting for the rights of women and the issues that they care about, Republicans have been holding them back by not supporting equal pay or funding for health care or special needs programs or education, etc., all issues that matter to women.
Second, for a winger to use the argument that Democrats are being sexist in examining Palin's qualifications and experience is laughable. I'm sorry, John K., but she will be vetted; she will be criticized.
Now, what John K. is saying is that we Democrats should applaud Palin simply because she is a woman - a woman who is fundamentally opposed to what Hillary Clinton, women in general and Democrats stand for. Republicans used to rail against such tokenism; now they embrace it.
No real surprise there.
As for Palin's qualifications, there just aren't any - a fact which is sure not to be ignored by HRC's supporters.
She was the mayor of a town with a population of 9,000. Her official duties included breaking ties in council meetings and serving as a ceremonial head of the city.
Her year and half as governor is pretty bare. She champion Ted Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against. She is currently embroiled in abuse of power scandals and will give a sworn deposition in a several weeks.
As of a year ago, she had NO position on the Iraq war. In fact, she has absolutely NO foreign policy experience whatsoever.
On domestic issues, she embraces an extreme rightwing agenda that will turn off many women and independents.
Frankly, it's difficult to assess a candidate who has so little experience in politics.
Brilliant move, Repubs - nominating someone who makes Obama seem tenured in comparison!
But look at it this way...John K. and his fellow conservatives think women, specifically, and voters, in general, are stupid. They expect people just to accept Palin because she's a woman, without asking any questions or getting any answers or knowing where she stands on the issues.
I'm sorry, John K., but your over-the-top hyperbole isn't going to convince anyone that both McCain and Palin can avoid answering any questions or criticism. It's incredibly naive on your part to assume as much.
But, you know, you keep telling feminists that Palin is qualified because she's hot; I'm sure that will really appeal to women. /snark
P.S. I'll see your "Lieberman endorsement" and raise a Chuck Hagel endorsement, a Susan Eisenhower endorsement and a Jim Leach endorsement.
Sorry, John, but more Republicans have endorsed Obama than Democrats who have endorsed McCain.
You lose. Again. It's getting to be a habit of your's.
Just to clue you in, John K....but a lot of what I'm hearing from HRC supporters as that they see Palin's selection as a pretty big slap in the face...
You wingers are clueless!
Maybe you can answer this for me, John K.
But if Palin's goal is to appeal to HRC's voters and other women, how does having referred to Hillary as a "whiner" help?
See, what happened is that there was the now famous incident on the day before the NH primary where Hillary cried. When asked about it at a forum discussion not long after, Palin said that Hillary was whining.
Don't you think that Palin should have to address that, considering that she invoked Hillary's name during her debut speech?
I think so, especially if she is going to assume Hillary's mantle(which, of course, Palin can't because Palin doesn't stand for anything that Hillary stands for).
Also, as a winger, how does it feel to watch and listen to Republicans cheering for HRC and Geraldine Ferraro? How's that make you feel?
See, that's why the ads with Hillary didn't work. First, they were run by a guy who made one of the most offensive jokes about Hillary's daughter. Second, they're from a party that never showed Hillary one ounce of respect.
What makes you think people will buy into it now? Did you think everyone would just forget how conservatives villified Hillary? And now you think people who supported her will vote for McCain just because he nominated a women?
I'm sorry, John K., but your comments and the selection of Palin only reveal how much Republicans don't get it when it comes to women's issues.
Thanks for playing!
John K: Actually my comments about Palin are correct. Let's step back in time. You left wingers wanted a black supreme court judge, you got Thomas, not black enough. 9 months ago when McCain criticized and stood against Bush he was a frequent guest on Olbermouth and Matthews. Now all you do is bash him. McCain hasn't changed. You asked for women to be granted access to power, McCain breaks another barrier with Palin no good. I have said this before, it has nothing to do with principles or what you want. You actually don't care about any of this stuff. You just can't stand a Republican doing it. Liberals have one pirnciple, obtain power at any cost and use it to control lives.
John K: Still think I am wrong, look at how the Democratic Congress has governed. You said you were going to stop the war, you increased funding and troop strength. You whined about Fisa, then passed a law giving Bush exactly what he asked for. Said you were going to do something about high gas prices, you doubled them. And, rather than take a shred of responsibility, you blame it on lack of a filibuster proof majority, like that matters, and Rove. You liberals are pathetic. In your lives and your actions. Which is exactly why the majority of Americans do not trust you or Hussein Obama. That is okay, counter this with the usual, you lie line. LMAO LMAO Like that has ever worked. LOL LOL LOL
I'm sorry, John K.
Unlike you and you're party, I don't think women are stupid and will just vote for someone because they are a woman.
And McCain broke that barrier, huh? McCain broke that barrier for women, huh? That barrier that conservatives have spent decade after decade erecting to prevent the equal status of women in our society? That barrier, John K.? Is that the barrier you're talking about?
Really...the candidate that made jokes about Hillary's daughter is now responsible for breaking down THAT barrier FOR women...unbelievable!
And McCain hasn't changed, huh?
The guy who was opposed to offshore drilling but now supports it...
The guy opposed to Bush's tax cuts but now supports them...
The guy who was for campaign finance reform before he tried to violate the law that bears his name...
The guy who railed against the extreme religious right but now embraces them...
The guy who swore he'd never run a Karl Rove-style campaign who now is doing just that...
The guy who promised an honorable campaign but has run the most dishonest campaign in recent memory...
The guy who talks tough agaisnt lobbyists but then employs nothing but lobbyists on his campaign staff...
The guy currently trying to exploit a natural disaster?
That guy?
The guy so afraid of his party that he decided to quell the fanatics instead of going w/ his first choice for VP, Lieberman?
That guy?
Yeah, that guy has a changed a lot.
But this is why you're so stupid, John - you think it was just about getting a black Supreme Court Justice. Nothing else mattered, he just had to be black.
I know that's how the right view's the Palin pick - we gave them a woman, what are they complaing about?
It just shows how much you DON'T GET IT. Just like your candidate.
It's about what people believe, John. It's about the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Maybe if you finally figured that out, you'd understand why women on the left aren't just going to support Palin because she's a woman and why they weren't just supporting HRC because she was a one.
Post a Comment