could it be (0.00 / 0)

that less sucky needs to be even less suckier?  or in other words--

Present a clear, honest, believable contrast that allows voters to make a choice on your--on Democratic---terms.

for now, I  think the appropriate word here is not "Democratic" but "progressive."  You do wonderful work Chris...please keep it up.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:04:24 AM CDT

i don't think that's the point of those speeches (4.00 / 2)

Michelle Obama's speech was meant to reintroduce Obama and his family to voters, and inoculate them against right wing smears that they're radicals.

Hillary Clinton's speech was directed at her supporters, and meant to unify the party. Other speeches fed into the idea of celebrating women, or of reconciliation in general.

None of the speeches have really explained what Obama will do.

More importantly, none of the speeches have really explained what John McCain will do.

We haven't wasted these first two days. But the next two days are going to be that much more critical.

---

by: danthrax @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:08:30 AM CDT

Most of the speeches (4.00 / 1)

so far are based around post-partisanship. That was exactly what the Keynote by Warner was about and Keynote sets the tone for everyone else by design.

Obama ran against partisanship. He preaches post-partisanship; working hand in hand with Republicans; saying they have good ideas.

Now how in the heck does anyone here expect him or anyone else to rail against Republicans when his entire campaign is centered around working with them and their good ideas? How?

Chris complains about the speeches. But in supporting Obama he and every other Obama supporter supported what they are hearing at the convention. That is Obama's platform. What's the big mystery here?

Clinton railed pretty good against McCain, Bush, and the Republicans last night. That is what she ran on from the beginning. But the bulk of the blogosphere chose Obama over Hillary. In doing so they chose post-partisanship instead over running against the Republicans.

What is the confusion here? If you supported or picked Obama over Clinton then what you are hearing in the speeches is what you wanted or you would not have picked Obama. Simple really.

If you like what Clinton said then you should have supported and picked Clinton. Simple really.

---

by: majorityretort2 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:17:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

TRANSLATION PROVIDED! (0.00 / 0)

I have a difficult time wearing my partisan hat and cheering loudly for speeches that virtually all complain about partisanship being a major problem in Washington, D.C.

Explanation #1: The MSM REQUIRE genuflection to the god of "post-partisanship." The American people "want" it and all opinion polls reflect it. Hillary was pilloried more for FAILING to project an aura of "post-partisanship" than anything else.

What "post-partisanship" means is "you should agree with me." That's all. Since right-wingers have dominated public discourse for the last 30 years, any attempt to change things is "partisan." See?

Republicans can attack Democrats without being "partisan" because they're the status quo (even when they're not).

Obama is cleverly trying to flip things. He says "I'm post-partisan." If he can win, he can push his agenda and then when Republicans object, he can plausibly say they're "partisan." See? Whoever gets to set the agenda (usually the President) gets to accuse everybody who opposes him of being "partisan" and "part of the problem."

Thus, it's perfectly O.K. for Bush to talk about "bi-partisanship" and then attack Democrats for opposing his Social Security privatization in the next sentence. Why? Because he sets the agenda, and any opposition is "partisan." See?

I have a difficult time understanding Democratic criticism of McCain since it is always prefaced with effusive compliments about the service he has done to the country, and how we should all respect him so deeply.

Explanation #2: Nobody is allowed to criticize McCain's service or patriotism directly because "he's a war hero." What happens if you violate this media rule? See Gen. Clark. Being a 4 star general and highly decorated combat commander in Vietnam didn't shield him from endless media scorn for daring to "impugn McCain's service and patriotism" even though he was careful to do neither.

If you don't want the ENTIRE media coverage of the convention to concentrate on the "gaffe" and "controversy" of someone "insulting McCain's patriotism" -- combined with massive fake outrage from Republicans that will totally drown any message Democrats want to give at this convention, you have to play by the media rules.

Solution? Break up the media conglomerates. Not going to happen this year.

Can you tell me what Michelle Obama's speech was about last night? Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton's speech was about tonight?

Translation #3: Shorter Michelle Obama: "I am not a radical Muslim nor am I Angela Davis out to "get Whitey." These are my children. We're a normal American family, and not related to Osama Bin Laden.'

Shorter Hillary Clinton: "Here's why you should support Obama. McCain = Bush and we can't afford another four more years."

Seems pretty clear to me.

---

by: Cugel @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree about Michelle and Hillary (4.00 / 1)

Michelle especially was explaining to the American people who she is and who Barack is, that they are normal, hard-working people, the Cosbys and not to be afraid of them.  Of course it looks simple-minded to us, because we are way beyond that.  Her speech was not directed at us, although I found it inspiring.

Hillary's was about unity and she had to tread a fine line between attacking McCain and making the case for Obama, but not coming on too strong.  She did fine.

Caroline and Ted Kennedy's speeches were a tribute to him.  He gave a real lesson in what it means to be a Dem.

I didn't see most of the rest of the speeches, but I did see Warner's and Casey's.  Warner's was a big disappointment.  He seemed to be talking to the Chamber of Commerce.  It was a real waste, and we are lucky he didn't run  for Pres.  He was clearly a wealthy businessman, an elitist unable to talk to ordinary people.  Casey was better, but soporific.

Democrats seem still to be ashamed of passion, which is a real mistake, and afraid to criticize McCain.  That is unfortunate, to say the least, because McCain is the scariest politician out there--even more so than Rudy Giuliani.  Read this piece by Andrew Sullivan.

There were a few good lines--I especially liked "He isn't a maverick, he's a sidekick" anfd "No way, no how, no McCain."

And I hope Barack makes the obvious point that McCain's economic plan would give him and Cindy a tax cut of upwards of $300,000, while Obama is willing to raise his own (and the McCains') taxes substantially in order to give the middle class a deserved tax cut.  It can't be emphasized too much how much the Bush tax cuts exacerbated income inequality.  Obama proposes modest efforts to reverse that skew, but only modest efforts.  McCain means giving even freer rein to the predators who have looted our country for the past 7 years.


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:19:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Speeches.. (4.00 / 6)

I don't remember John Kerry's speech except that he was "reporting for duty."

But... I think you're maybe not getting the simple themes of these speeches:

Michelle Obama: We're normal.

Hillary Clinton: If you supported me and aren't supporting Barack, you're an idiot.

I mean, at some level... these are all emotional appeals.  I think what you're looking for is maybe an intellectual appeal, but that's not really the point of these speeches.

Your comment about McCain always being praised is well noted though... Democrats are just scared to death of looking like they're criticizing any aspect of the military, or someone that was in the military.  No such thing stopped Republicans from doing that in 2004... and it wouldn't surprise me if the RNC handed out Turbans or something else equally or even more distasteful. Clinton's criticism of McCain was fine tonight, except for that one little "He's my friend" part.  Why was that necessary?  Can we not just criticize the guy?

I just don't know... Maybe they're right and we just can't criticize him, or even remotely look like we're criticizing him without noting that we're not criticizing his service... And it's only IOKIYAR.  In other words, maybe we're just simply playing with a worse deck, and we just have to deal with it.  I don't really know, but certainly the Republicans don't seem to have a problem with ANY kind of criticism.

Now, here's something interesting though...
http://thehill.com/leading-the...

So, this is saying that the Obama team is modifying the speeches and insisting that they all have a "Rags to Riches" theme.  Huh?  If that's really the theme they're going for (and I don't even know why they would be going for that), I haven't gotten that at all.  Are they sure that's what they're doing?  If so, this might be the worst and most hidden messaging I've seen so far this campaign.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:21:36 AM CDT

Actually, I DID Pick Up On That Theme (4.00 / 1)

Though "rags to riches" doesn't quite capture it, it's broader than that, it's simply about America being the "land of opportunity." And I understand the logic of it, because it's a very powerful American myth, and because it's quite clear that GOP rule and GOP policies have made the realization of that myth a whole lot harder.

This could be very powerful, particularly if it's basically the main theme of Obama's speech.  In that case, it wouldn't matter if you didn't realize it had been said repeatedly by other speakers before him.  You would be softened up for it, without even realizing it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:46:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Contrast (0.00 / 0)

Not only has the GOP made the realization of the rags-to-riches myth harder, it's a story that really does sum-up the lives of the Obamas.

Americans love a rich person if the rich person worked themselves up from dirt-poor. Conversely, Americans hate old money, and McCain money is old money. It's old money that he cheated on his wife to get, even. If that's the contrast they're going for, then it's a good contrast.

But jeez, do all these elections have to come down to this bull shit every time?

---

by: ergotist @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:54:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But what people don't love... (0.00 / 0)

is if the rich person in question accumulated wealth with the suspicious help of questionable acquaintances. Rethuglicans know that from personal experience, and don't hesitate to paint Obama as a crook. And the "rags to riches" theme opens new possibilities for them to go that way. You and I know that there's nothing serious to Obama's connection with the unapologizing weatherman terrorist Ayers or the convicted criminal Rezko, but at a cursory glance, it looks horrible. And many voters only pay cursory attention to the political discussion. So, this topic has to be avoided as much as possible, and "rags to riches" doesn't help in doing that. Imho this can seriously backfire.

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:59:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also, that's contradicting the narrative about McCain... (4.00 / 1)

..being the rich elitist. "rags to riches" implies Obama is rich, too. And lawyers always have that elitist smell. No surprise that rethuglicans countered the McCain house attacks by pointing at Obama's 1.65 million $ home, which isn't exactly mainstream, either. But afaik Obama didn't pay cash for that house, but had to finance it. Now, wouldn't it be better to show that Obama is still a down to earth guy by spreading a different talking point, something like: "Obama has to pay premiums for his mortgage for the next 17 years, until he actually owns his home. Just like everybody else, except John McCain."?

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:20:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Americans love a rich person" (0.00 / 0)

I'm not so sure a lot of Americans are happy with a rich African American unfortunately, even if he worked himself up from nothing.

vodamusic.com

---

by: CranesAreFlying @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 13:30:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I picked up on two themes today... (0.00 / 0)

Granted, I didn't start watching until roughly 7 PM EDT, but that's still a lot of speeches...  The things I kept hearing over and over again:

1) We can't afford 4 more years of Bush/McCain

2) Barack Obama is the Change We Need

Honestly, these lines were said almost verbatim over and over again. Rags to riches?  I didn't get that as much.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:05:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deval Patrick n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Books Alive @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:32:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This ole fairy tale topic shall be part of the "change" message? (0.00 / 0)

Sry, but this sounds like the same old same old. Not really like a powerful new approach, a real change. Apart from this, it will be difficult to prove that the republicans reduced the opportunities to move up. Imho it's a very lame, too heavily data based line of attack. I believe it's true, and statistics show that, too, but the right wingers will counter this with single examples that seem to contradict this. And most problematic is that Obama himself is such an example of using opportunities to build a successful idea. No, really, this sounds horrible contradictory to me. And the Obama camp wants this to be the main topic of the convention? Don't they have any better ideas???

Or do I misunderstand the way they want to use this point? Is it only about Obama being an example of the American Dream, and that's why people should vote for him? Well, this would raise sympathy for the candidate, but why should this make anyone vote for him? What's in it for the people, what would they gain from president Obama? This message doesn't say anything about that. And then, where is the line of attack against the republicans in it? They will say they have always been the party that held opportunity in higher regard, and that the Dems not only exploited, but even hampered entrepreneurs and successful bussinessman with a tax policy that made the rich pay a higher share (not true, but the rethugs are good in twisting the facts). No, again, I can't manage to see any real strength in this message.

One last point: While the loss of opportunity is a sad fact, and less people are able to move up from the middle class nowadays, imho this isn't the people's primary concern. They are working too hard to at least preserve the status quo, to keep their standard of living, to idly philosophize about this. What people don't understand, and what they are deeply worried about, is that they have to work harder every year and don't get one step ahead. Opportunities, shmopportunities, but if you're doing the same job for years, and do it good, how can it be that you're are actually falling behind? Why do you have to pick up a second job at all when your father didn't have to? I think people have a strong feeling nowadays that the system is unfairly skewed to their disadvantage. Many have resignated and accepted that not everybody will be able to make a great carreer, but they still think that a hard working American should be able to make a decent living for himself and his family. "Rags too riches" doesn't give a convincing answer to this. Imho it will fail, and fail big time.

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:28:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like Chris Said (4.00 / 1)

No, really, this sounds horrible contradictory to me. And the Obama camp wants this to be the main topic of the convention? Don't they have any better ideas???

Lots of contradictions.

A post-partisan progressive campaign for President--no, wait, a post-partisan Democratic Party progressive campaign for President--how could it not overflow with contradictions?

The fact that the transformative leader has to prove he's just a regular guy only adds an extra layer.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:25:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Else Is New? (0.00 / 0)

If such blatant contradictions actually bothered people, America wouldn't have fundamentalist religions, healthy fast food, or perpetual war for perpetual peace.

---

by: ergotist @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:20:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Agree With Your Main Thesis 100% (4.00 / 7)

But I can give Hillary and Michelle's speeches a pass, because they were both meant to do double duty--at least--and at this point they clearly had to.  They were both speeches that were primarily transactional, on a level of symbolic acceptance and understanding, which dependended inherently on creating an emotional bond, but which were not simply emotional.  Indeed, they were actually acts of identity formation, they were about drawing together diverse segments of the public into a sense of unity.

Hillary was bringing some of her more recalcitrant followers along, while also speaking to the American public as a whole--particularly women.  The part about praising John McCain definitely didn't fit, work, or belong, but the rest, though not quite stellar, was really pretty good, and was aiming to do a really tough job.

Michelle was doing two different things, too.  The first was speaking to American--particularly rural whites, IMHO, that really have isolated themselves from African Americans and see them primarily through negative media stereotypes.  It's been a long time since The Cosby Show went off the air, and her job was to remind (and for those too young to remember, show) people that blacks can love their children, their community, and their country just like white people do, while not only not seeming condescending about it, but not seeming to be doing it at all.  That is, it passed muster as humanizing herself, her family and her husband, but it was really about humanizing her race.

The second thing she was doing was affirming progressive values as rooted in faith and family the same way conservatives claim that theirs are.  This was targetted both to the American people as a whole, and also, quite specifically, to progressives who have been somewhat disenchanted by Obama's rightward shift since winning the nomination.

So, given the complexity of the two tasks in each of these speeches, I'm willing to give them special dispensation.  They were speeches that shouldn't have had to be made, but they did have to be made, and from where I sit, both did their jobs.  But all the other speeches I think need to be held up to the standards you set out, and failure was distressingly commonplace.  And that's even before considering the issue of coordination between speeches.

But, of course, it's not really the fault of the speeches so much as it's the fault of the party's identity and ideological confusion.  If you don't know who you are, and what you stand for, it's pretty damned hard to explain it to others.  The complaints you listed lay this out in terms of a bill of particulars, but "indentity and ideological confusion" is a good summary of what they all add up to, IMHO.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:37:33 AM CDT

Michelle Obama (0.00 / 0)

She drew a sharp contrast: "hope vs. fear"-- but I'm watching on TV, so the power comes by combination with the images not just the text.

I'll highlight this, though:

And one day, they - and your sons and daughters - will tell their own children about what we did together in this election. They'll tell them how this time, we listened to our hopes, instead of our fears.

---

by: hhex65 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:44:29 AM CDT

Sounds good, but... (4.00 / 1)

it's a fact that fear is a stronger motivation than hope. The republicans know that and use it to their advantage. The Dems don't even manage to gain from the widespread economic fears that is worrying so many families. Positive messages and staying on ethical high grounds are nice and fine, but if this somewhat elitist political correctness isn't really honored by the voters, and even results in losing the elections, isn't the resulting misery of more years a sign that you didn't live up to your responsibility? Not to advocate that the end justifies ALL means, but the Dems really should be harder hitting in order to win. And if hope doesn't move the voters as much as FUD, you have to accept that reality.  

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:44:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh, don't get me wrong (4.00 / 2)

Of course Dems should continue to speak about hope and what they have in their plans to deliver change. But voters are accustomed to politicians making broad promises, and they don't believe even half of those. So, to cope with that, Dems should also paint a picture what four more years of the same would mean to middle class families. And they don't have to exaggerate, because the honest outlook ain't nice. Declining real wages, inflation, job insecurity, credit crisis, health care costs, you name it. Sure, it will be kind of a shock therapy, but liberals have to show worried voters that Americans simply can't afford president McSame, and that this major concern trumps every argument they may have against Barack Obama.  

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:08:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And I'd add that meticulous spreadsheets (0.00 / 0)

combined with massive ground organization might even trump FUD-- but it makes for boring speeches.

From home, I think I've been hearing the speakers paint the picture of 4 years of McCain that you describe. It feels like it.

Overall, I'm going to wait until after the Invesco speech to assess the convention; only thing I've learned watching the Obama campaign is to wait-and-see a little before I reach for the razor blades.

---

by: hhex65 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 14:31:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two things that are bothering me (4.00 / 3)

1) Almost all the speeches are issues oriented, not theme oriented. Gore and Kerry were "right" (popular majorities) on the issues too -- lotta good it did them. There's very little consistent theme development on what the election is about, who John McCain really is, what it means to be a Democrat, what it means to be a Republican, etc. Hell, people hate the Republican brand -- why aren't we stomping and ridiculing that rotted corpse in every speech?

Pity the poor Republicans. That lying crazy old coot McCain is one of them. Thank God we're not. You, dear voter wouldn't want to be them either. They're losers and wankers.  With your help in November, we Democrats are going to make that all that go away.

Derisive mocking laughter throughout. That's a winning theme -- and it doesn't require droning on about issues.

2) Does every other sentence have to have Barack Obama's name in it?  How about pushing the need to elect Democrats? How about pushing that Democrats will deliver x, y and z? How about stringing together multiple sentences/paragraphs to develop a narrative without breaking them up with the seemingly obligatory "And that person is Barack Obama."

2a) I sure wish I was hearing John McCain's name in the negative more often than I was hearing Obama's name. Other than 'more of the same' and variations of 'change from more of the same,' they've done a piss poor job of tearing down and redefining McCain. I guess they really are going to let him keep the Straight Talk brand...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:57:48 AM CDT

Hmm, not only you have to work on the phrasing, (0.00 / 0)

but how does your message connect with what voters are thinking? McCain has higher popularity polls than Obama - as long as no major screwup happens, especially independent voters won't believe he is worse than Obama. And the popularity of both parties is even below Bush's, it's not that Dems have an inherent advantage and are seen as more honest and dedicated to delivering positive results.

What you wrote is a good stomp speech to ignite liberals already intending to vote for Obama, but it won't win a single vote from the independent camp, I fear.

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:17:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Indies aren't the problem (0.00 / 0)

Democrats are. The Democratic party itself is quite popular - well over 50% favorable in most polls with the Repubs in the toilet. Now Congressional approval is another story.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:20:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But certainly independents are important! (0.00 / 0)

"Major subgroups of the U.S. population giving neither candidate a large or consistent edge include 30- to 49-year-olds, 50- to 64-year-olds, college grads, those with some college education, those with no college education, political independents, and Catholics."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109...

Not the only poll saying that there's a close race about the independent vote. And look at the graph accompanying the quote - do you think this stagnating dead heat about the independents is satisfactory? McCain desperately needs those votes for winning, but Obama's message should resonate more with those strongly middle class voters. Why can't the Dems manage to win over more of them?

And your confidence that Dem voters alone will be enough to gain a majority is unbased, imho:
"During July, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats fell two percentage points to 39.2%."
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

No, sry, I'm still thinking a stomp speech that effectively only says "McCain bad bad bad" without giving any compelling reasons won't be good enough to gain any swing votes. And those votes are needed, because a party affiliation of about 40% isn't sufficient.

As for your point that about 50% (afaik even more) of the voters have a favorable view of the Dems, of course you're right. Why the public holds liberals in general in such high regard, when the satisfaction with Dems in Congress is at such low levels, is beyond me, but it's a fact. But don't be too enthusiastic about it, because it doesn't change the fact thatso far less than 50% prefer president Obama, so there's still much work to be done. Thinking that the election is already decided would be a dangerous mistake. McCain many be a liar, a warmongerer, too old to lead, and what else. But in the primaries he has proven that he should never be counted out, no matter how weak his chances may look like.

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:45:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Except (0.00 / 0)

most people don't see John McCain as a typical Republican and it's next to impossible to define him as one.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:04:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nothing's Impossible (0.00 / 0)

You woulda thunk that it would have been next to impossible to define a guy who was wounded in battle as a traitor and a coward, but they did it.

---

by: ergotist @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bury them, bury McCain (0.00 / 0)

Gray, first, I'm suggesting a theme to develop, not the precise words to use.

Second, the GOP brand is Teh Suck. Even Republicans are running from it, avoiding their own convention. We should be burying them. They're losers and people don't want to vote for losers.  

Third, it's our job to define McCain. Indies may think they like him, but after we define him they should hate him, just like they hate the GOP. "The GOP is Teh Suck. McCain is the GOP. Therefore McCain is Teh Suck." Your assumption seems to be that there's nothing we can say to change those minds. If so, why are we bothering at all? Isn't persuasion the whole reason for giving speeches?

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:46:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

geez Chris (4.00 / 6)

Michelle's goal was to not look like Angela Davis.  Hillary's was self-evident given the massive MSM bullshit going on.  You ask a bit too much.  Biden needs to slam the old man; Bill needs to get on and off; Obama I'm not worried about.  Bottom line for me is: this country is at least half full of idiots and if we lose, it will just be more proof.  I'm not sure a perfect campaign can overcome that reality.

---

by: Weeferdog @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:56 AM CDT

Been thinking about this (4.00 / 5)

for a while and it's not just the convention, but the convention shows it. Maybe I'm crazy but I feel like the heart and soul of the country is on the line. The economy is on the brink of something awful, we've become known as a country that tortures rather than one that polices against such things, the rule of law has been shredded with the Constitution in tatters and we're having a polite conversation about electing a nice, normal man to office. Perhaps some of us are running around with our "hair on fire" as Richard Clarke would say, but we are being met with the same kind of disdain that he was when he was trying to warn Condi et al that trouble was coming, big trouble, and it needed a strong response.

There's way too much at stake for the dems to blow this. And what I'm seeing from the floor of the convention and from our friends the bloggers running around Denver is that it's corporate party time. Doesn't bode well for me.

But I could be wrong. YMMV.

---

by: RevDeb @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:53:48 AM CDT

It's the bland generic tone of the speeches that simply does not motivate (0.00 / 0)

isn't it Obama that speaks of the  (paraphrasing) 'urgency of now'?

Every Convention ideally should get people motivated to work their tails off because not only are you trying to achieve something with your candidate's victory but you are trying to prevent what the other guy's victory will result in

I'm not feeling the urgency to stop McSame: once they praise him, no matter how gratutitously, he is still getting some praise and that does send a mixed message to the broader public

Do you suppose any of those at the top reaches of this campaign or the political consultants have EVER watched past Convention footage prior to 1964??

For me, when I see and hear the delegates respond to speeches that the networks don't cover( I'm watching c-span and will click over to see if the networks are showing what's getting the raucous reception), I wonder why the consultants and the higher ups in the Campaign structure don't trust what they see and hear too.

For instance, Kucinich had the Convention delegates in the palm of his hand and Schweitzer's speech was pure Americana and the delegates( and I at home) LOVED it.

Warner's was a snooze from where I'm sitting.  

---

by: Susan H @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:58:09 AM CDT

from now on (4.00 / 4)

every time Republicans complain about Dem energy policy and crank up the drill here drill now mantra, the response should be to roll Schweitzer's speech. He was having a great ol' time, the delegates loved it. His message was Republicans are fools and crooks, but it didn't play mean spirited. More like your favorite football coach.

Kucinich made a zinger too, "The oil administration, they want to drill more--into your wallet!"

---

by: T Maysle @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:30:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sometimes this message works (4.00 / 2)

Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Rep. Jim Leach both got beat with high favorability ratings simply because of their identification with the Republican Party.

I think Obama is trying to drive turnout with infrastructure, not red meat. I don't have any data on the ideological leanings of people who are switching from GOP to independent or from independent to Democratic but it's possible that Obama's "post-partisan" (does he ever say that? where did that phrase come from?) message is simple math.

Subtracting red meat used to mean reduced enthusiasm. If with better infrastructure that is no longer true then you have to look at what the red meat SUBTRACTS from the independents and soft Republicans (a small percentage but still enough to tilt elections) who aren't really all that ideological but are turned off by overt partisan claims.

I've seen no evidence that Obama isn't going to govern as a progressive or that he's going to adopt Republican ideas. I think he's trying to create an environment where when Mitch McConnell tries to whip votes on the Republican Party line somebody like Dick Lugar or Arlen Specter can tell him to go pee up a rope. There are 10 votes floating around on most issues that are tied more to regional interest than party interest and if those votes can float as the founders intended then the Senate wouldn't be such a suckhole. I think Obama is trying to loosen the bonds of partisan loyalty in the GOP. Democrats have already paid that price (the migration of the Dixiecrats out of the party over a generation) and would do better moving forward under a "post partisan" culture than Republicans.

What are Blue Dogs except the Rockefeller Republicans of the South? Only the Rockefeller Republicans have been replaced with Liberal Dems in the northeast and the Rockefeller Dogs have replaced Dixiecrats. That's progress in my book.

John McCain

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:37:36 AM CDT

Lamont had a better ground game (4.00 / 2)

Back 2 years ago in CT the Lamont ground game was huge and Joe's was invisible, hardly existent. I was there. Yet the voters made their choice-"experience", they knew the guy.

I don't trust the promise of a ground game making it up any more.

---

by: RevDeb @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:28:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The benefits of incumbancy (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman was far better known among Republicans and Independents in his home state of CT than McCain is known to the people of Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado know McCain. I would think that ground game makes a bigger difference where the candidates are less well known. Both Obama and McCain are goign to have 100% name recognition in every state but it's not like the situation with Lieberman where he had that kind of name recognition backed by 18 years of daily local press coverage. McCain has some advantages in this regard nationally but nothing like Lieberman had in his home state.

John McCain

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:48:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did you work on the campaign? (0.00 / 0)

I worked down in Fairfield County...the ground game was good, but complacency became a problem at the end. No one though even 1/3 of the Democratic Party would turn out for Lieberman. The canvassers and the phonebankers were getting the truth, that many Democrats were for Lieberman, no one was listening.

It didn't matter really, there was nothing we could do  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:12:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Evidence of intent to govern (4.00 / 1)

If FISA wasn't a key signal that Obama intends to govern from the center with a major lean to the right, what would you call it?

---

by: RapsodiaStellare @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd call it... (4.00 / 2)

...one issue that was lost the day Harry Reid agreed to let the Senate Intelligence bill be the controlling bill on the floor of the Senate floor. Everything after that point was hot air.

John McCain

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The FISA bill was extraordinarily bad policy... (0.00 / 0)

...but when the GOP's dirty tricksters (folks like Roger Stone) start undermining Obama's presidency in earnest next year, I'll bet some of that warrantless wiretapping authority will come in handy.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

---

by: tru blu @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:43:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree (4.00 / 1)

Obama's "psot-partisanship" has two meanings.  One, he doesn't demonize Republicans in order to attract some of them to his banner.  There are moderate GOPers who are sick at what Bush/Cheney have done to this country, and he is trying to make it ok for them to vote for him.  Two, when he gets into office he will try to isolate McConnell and the others on the extreme right and peel off enough Specters and Lugars and Snowes to get what he wants passed.  It is pretty simple, and not that scary to me.  People are really tired of gridlock that prevents addressing our pressing problems, and we really can't afford it.  He is attacking McCain's policies pretty sharply now,. and Biden and others will go after him personally, IMHO.  Then they will try to provoke an explosion of the McCain temper, probably in the debates.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:32:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You expect too much (0.00 / 0)

Just an observation

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:09:08 AM CDT

Ah.... (0.00 / 0)

A professional speechgiver and writer giving criticism... oh wait.  

Right little ray of sunshine you are tonight Chris.  Maybe you need to unplug and watch for a few days.  

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:14:08 AM CDT

You'd like him to be more progressive (4.00 / 2)

Some of these 'contradictions' aren't contradictions -- they're simply another way to point at that Obama's not progressive enough.

You're mad because Obama is not progressive/leftist enough for your tastes. That's what this comes down to. And as I and others have noted here many times, except for one instance in his FISA defense, Obama has never claimed to be a progressive.

Yes we should vote for a Democrat who is going to be non-partisan because the Republicans are damn sure not going to return the favor. Obama, like Warner, believes in examining an issue on its merits and making choices based on rational thinking rather than partisan demands. That's post-partisanship in a nutshell.

Your 2nd item gets directly at this -- you have difficulty being partisan for a post-partisan candidate. That's not his contradiction -- it's yours. Post-partisan doesn't literally mean we're going to get rid of parties as Rachel Maddow strawmanned last night after Warner's speech.

I'll grant that the last two lines about Iraq and health care are correct -- these are contradictions.

But I'm not sure this is the time and place, given HRC and her supporters, for Obama to dwell on his opposition to mandates. And, when Obama speaks to Iraq he himself pretty much always makes it clear that he wants a 'responsible' withdrawal.  

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:26:21 AM CDT

well.. (4.00 / 2)

"You're mad because Obama is not progressive/leftist enough for your tastes."

That's really the most patronizing thing I've read all morning (admittedly, I'm just waking up.) You manage to suggest that Chris is (a) just being emotional and not thinking things through and (b) that his political convictions are just "tastes."

There are nicer ways to say what I think you do believe, which is actually that "yeah, Obama's not progressive enough, it sucks, but can we just be smart and win the election already?" (If your point is really, actually "Chris Bowers is too left-wing", what are you doing here?)

---

by: sdedeo @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:32:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you're reading too much into my comment (0.00 / 0)

I certainly did not mean to imply either of the things you took from my message. I meant it rather straightforward -- Chris' complaints, quite understandably, seem to me to fall into this not-progressive-enough category. And Obama isn't a progressive. I was using the word 'tastes' as a synonym for 'preferences'.

My point isn't that Chris Bowers is too left-wing but rather that Obama is not now and never is going to be as left-wing as some on here prefer.

I have stated many times on this site that Obama's promise as a progressive has more to do with electoral map expansion and helping with down-ticket racing then with avowed ideology.

I don't think that's so terribly offensive.

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's an internet thing i guess (0.00 / 0)

without tone-of-voice I misread your comment as being pejorative. My bad, sorry.

---

by: sdedeo @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:51:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, to be honest, I did (0.00 / 0)

mean it somewhat pejoratively but in a different, dialed-down manner than you suggested.

Chris, IMO, was putting a new wrapper on an old complaint. It seems to me sometimes that Chris expects (as opposed to 'wants' or 'encourages') Obama to be more progressive than he is.

---

by: Matt H @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i agree (4.00 / 2)

The only speech that impressed me was Ted Kennedy's, and that in part because he himself is such a symbol of progressive-combativeness that contrasted with much of the rest of the room.

And I also agree with you that Obama, as nice as he is, and as historic his win is going to be, is not really much of a progressive. I very much doubt we are going to turn back enough of the "Bush clock" to make a difference.

I don't think any of a thousand things are going to change much, to tell the truth -- I don't think we're going to regain our civil liberties, or do much to alter the environmental destruction our economy causes, or really put a dent in the military-industrial complex, or do much to alter the misery of those who missed making it to the middle class.

The convention is, in a sense, just ratifying all of these "suspicions", sadly. I agree with Matt as well when he asks "why am I here?" There's very little that the progressives have in common with the Obama team any more.

The best news came last week, when he picked Biden and not Bayh or Kaine. That he was even considering them was stunning.

It's great we are going to have a black president. I'll put my Obama sign in the window, and probably give money to his campaign. I'll be happy to have someone vaguely intelligent in the White House. But I won't expect change to come from there.

---

by: sdedeo @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:29:00 AM CDT

I think you are misreading him (0.00 / 0)

Did you read the NYTimes magazine piece on Obama's economics?  He is pragmatic, but he well understands the need for more regulation and more tax and pay equity. He isn't mesmerized by deficits and wants a big public works/infrastructure/alternative and efficient energy spending package.  His reforms of the tax code are modest but turn things around in the right direction. He wants to expand opportunity and supports unions.  The real question is how much he can get done.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:38:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no, but i will (4.00 / 1)

In the end, what is promised and what happens in office are very different things. Right now we're all going on hunches, and my hunch is that Obama has carved himself a path that will be moderate-Clintonian. Not a bad thing, at all, but bigger things -- like the environment, like health care -- I think are not going to happen if we "leave it up to him."

I'm an optimist, in the end, and I do believe that Obama's victory will give a huge infusion to more progressive people as well. I do think -- this is a big point on Open Left these days -- that it could really signal the "majority of minorities" and release a huge amount of energy among those seeking and providing more radical solutions.

---

by: sdedeo @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:59:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing that's... (4.00 / 1)

...bothering me was said by someone in another thread: Most of the speeches haven't addressed/attacked John McCain's character flaws. I actually winced when Hillary described McCain as her "friend." (I really hope Barack doesn't assume that same Senate camaraderie tone.) Perhaps Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are in a better position to do this as longtime voices in Washington, but I feel like it's time for someone to call the "Straight-Talk Express" what it is: A politically expedient way for McCain to flip-flop on issues and say whatever he feels his listener/audience wants to hear. Not too long ago someone suggested a series of Obama attack ads that asked, "What else can't McCain remember?" Given how his positions have changed over the years, there's quite a bit McCain might wanna forget in the context of this election.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

---

by: tru blu @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:45:24 AM CDT

Dems obviously always have to play nice (0.00 / 0)

I actually winced when Hillary described McCain as her "friend."
Yes, that was the one weak point in her speech. But not as bad as Obama's response on that McCain attack, when he called him an honorable man. For heaven's sake, do Dems really have to make McCain look acceptable to swing voters? If they can't control themselves and their subconcious drives them to praise the waveric, they need hypnosis or something. But this has to stop asap.

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:20:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't like the "McCain is my friend" business either, but... (0.00 / 0)

...for people who don't tune into this stuff 24/7 (i.e., the overwhelming majority of the audience out there, and NOT people like us), I think whenever they hear McCain's name being spoken in this convention, they're hearing:

-- "I respect McCain/he's my friend" about 5% of the time

-- Variations on "McCain = Bush, four years of McCain will be the same as eight years of Bush" about 95% of the time

I'd probably prefer 100%, but it seems like a pretty good balance to me.  Maybe they're throwing in that 5% to try to reach the weird outliers who don't want to support McCain but somehow still feel a need to hear people say something nice about him.  

I do NOT think there's ANY chance AT ALL of ANYONE (aside from nitpicking political junkies like us) watching this convention and thinking, "those Democrats are all saying nice things about McCain one minute and then tearing him down the next minute, so what am I supposed to think?"  Being concerned about that possibility really does strike me as vastly over-intellectualizing the emotional and visceral nature of what's going on.

---

by: Haggai @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:33:12 AM CDT

Didn't say... (0.00 / 0)

...that the average convention watcher will be confused about what to think. I just feel the graciousness should be tempered with a bit more deconstruction of the McCain myth. That's ripe for harvesting.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

---

by: tru blu @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:56:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

my guess is (4.00 / 1)

That there are still many pollsters who are telling them that "post-partisanship" is a winner -- despite the contradictions. Obama himself, of course, built much of his early campaign on the same theme.

Is it smart to talk about liking McCain "as a person"? I don't think so. How damaging is it? I do hope you're right, and that everyone watching ignores these moments. But I think many of us remember the last eight years of "George Bush is an awesome guy, I just disagree with him on this one aaaaaa I am being stabbed in the face by George Bush what an awesome guy you should have a beer with him not me".

That didn't go so well.

---

by: sdedeo @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:58:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the other hand... (4.00 / 1)

...considering that Bush won re-election but then sank into sub-30 approval ratings, an awful lot of voters clearly are of the mindset that, "I thought Bush was a decent guy, but man, he sure turned out to be a crappy president."  So in that sense, the message of "you may like some things about McCain, but don't be fooled, he'll be just like Bush" is attempting to connect with that same feeling, i.e., you should think the same thing about McCain that you think about Bush.

And besides, since we (partisan Dem political junkies) all know McCain sucks and are far beyond tired of hearing anything nice about him, I think we tend to overplay the occasional praise for him we hear from Dems in our minds while simultaneously downplaying all the daggers they're throwing at him.  Don't you agree that this concentrated assault on McCain is a lot more than most voters have ever heard about him before?    

---

by: Haggai @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:12:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

in the end (0.00 / 0)

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. It's definitely toned down from the cowardice of the last eight years (in part because of the media, as someone noted, in 2004 the story was "the Dems are in danger is they nominate someone too angry about Bush"; in 2008 its "the Dems are in danger if they are not angry enough.")

Maybe it's toned down enough that it won't have the same effects.

---

by: sdedeo @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:22:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh??! (4.00 / 1)

I have a difficult time cheering when I am told we are going to pass universal health care legislation, even though we know that no one is proposing universal health care legislation.

Errrr, Chris?  Ted Kennedy.  Hellllooooo?!

---

by: gas28man @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:06:53 AM CDT

women (4.00 / 4)

these first two nights, imho, were geared towards women.  The wonky part of me wasn't inspired......but the mother/sister/daughter part of me got the message loud and clear that our country is fucked up and in sorrow.  Now is the time to come together as a nation and community and change our path.  

I watched both nights with my mother and daughter (and hubby was there too).  To see the majority of delegates looking like us - female - is a very powerful message.  The democratic party benefits tremendously when it acknowledges that it is the party of strong, caring, protective women.  

I thought both Michelle and Hillary were speaking to women.  It doesn't surprise me that it didn't resonate as much with the men.  Now the anger and frustration can come from Bill Clinton and Biden and put us all on the same page.

But I really think the women in the party (and country) needed a voice.  A lot of women are horrified and stricken by the past 8 yrs, we needed to harness those feelings into a clear cut message - vote for Obama.

---

by: sisterfish @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:04:21 AM CDT

Right on. (4.00 / 1)

I really liked Michelle's speech and she certainly got the better of the deal having Ken Burns do her video and not that rock video producer who did Hillary's.  I think both speeches were reassuring to older women and certainly fired up the younger ones.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]