The major event of last week was Senator Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field. All through the Democratic primaries, his toughness was repeatedly questioned: would he stand up to the mud-slinging Republicans? Or is he just a Kumbayah-chanting Kerry (of the 2004 vintage)?
In recent weeks, the GOP was throwing everything at Obama - calling him a vacuous celebrity, not ready to lead, inexperienced, etc. And the Obama campaign was not exactly hitting back as it should, said many observers. His "new politics" would fail when faced with the old politics. Some of this could be seen in the early days of the Convention, when not many attacks were made on John McCain.
But on Thursday, all those questions were answered. Obama showed that he is skinny, but he's tough. He went after George Bush. Tied John McCain to W and questioned John McCain's judgment and temperament. Proclaimed his goals (an aim-for-the-moon "freedom from foreign oil in 10 years"), laid out his economic agenda (e.g. tax cuts for 95% of American working families, eliminate capital gains tax on small businesses) and emphasized (libertarian) personal and mutual responsibility. He also made clear areas where people could find common ground: Surely, people could agree on the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Surely, people could hunt, while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals? And surely, everybody could agree on hospital visits by loving partners of gay patients, even if they could not be married? [That last list is for those who say unity is hogwash.]
As either Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams (I forget who) pointed out at the end, the "bring it on, John McCain" attitude was taken straight from Andrew Shepherd's call-to-arms in The American President. The country has been going in the wrong direction for the last eight years, and some liberalism could well help set it straight again.
Each time Obama delivers a major speech, I am compelled to call it The Speech. Whether it was The Speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, The Speech on Race this March, or The Speech delivered earlier this week. Yes, Obama is not perfect, yes, he has faults. But the man is a genius, intelligent, and truly, as someone said, the question is not whether he deserves to be President, but whether we deserve him.
The Speech:
Showing posts with label Democratic Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Convention. Show all posts
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Democratic Convention: Day 3
This was a good day - partly because I watched it on C-SPAN (though there were some audio glitches during Joe Biden's speech). No talking heads interrupting or (worse) replacing the speeches!
There were plenty of good people in-between the Big People. CSM Michele Jones, Lt Gen. Claudia Kennedy (first female 3-star General), Rear Admiral John Hutson (lifelong Republican) (the last two retired), Rep. Patrick Murphy, Tammy Duckworth, Beth Robinson (wife of a Marine, VA activist and MS patient).
Senator Kerry came out firing, comparing Candidate McCain to Senator McCain ("before McCain debates Obama, he has to debate himself!"), and getting the crowd to weigh in on Obama's judgment on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Georgia vs McCain's erroneous acts/proclamations on the same issues. Kerry even came out and said the candidate who wanted to raise the discourse uses only personal attacks and questions Obama's patriotism. Where was this guy in 2004?!
President Clinton got a huge ovation that last a few minutes - he's easily one of the most popular Democrats. More importantly, he strongly endorsed Senator Obama's candidacy, from his (self-described) unique perspective as one of two Democratic Presidents alive. He trumpeted Obama's policies (not generic "Democratic" policies) as superior to McCain's, which I think was very good and effective. Clinton also said Obama is Ready to be President. Now I only hope Clinton doesn't make any more ambivalent statements going forward.
Finally, Joe Biden. He seemed to stumble occasionally, but that appears to be audio glitches in C-SPAN's transmission. Biden's son did a nice introduction, and Joe continued in the personal-story-vein, describing his childhood and his relationship with his mother ("if a bigger boy knocked me down, my mother told me to bloody his nose so I could walk the street the next day!") Described ordinary people worrying about their situation, immediate and future concerns. He also attacked John McCain, on his continuation of the Iraq War, on his (lack of) understanding of the economy, his support of the Bush tax cuts, his opposition to raising the minimum wage, and contrasted McCain's record with Obama's:
"...on the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was proven right."
The speech might have been delivered better (which would have really brought the house down), but the content seemed quite good. And the NYT has picked up this impression - that Biden did what was needed - which will be good in driving the narrative.
It was great to see Mama Biden and Obama-Uncle Charles Payne. And the ending visual of Obama with the Family Biden was beautiful.
Some people (like Pat Buchanan on MSNBC!) criticize the Convention for not attacking McCain enough. However, the Convention is keeping Obama's promise of a relatively clean campaign, while still drawing a contrast with McCain and tying McCain to Bush (repeated Freudian slips of "George - I mean, John McCain!") And most importantly, I think Party Unity might have been achieved, except for a small minority of recalcitrant Clintonistas (aka PUMAs).
If most of Hillary Clinton's supporters, both women and senior citizens, come back to the fold, and I think Joe Biden can really help with the 65+-group, then Obama will have a much easier time ahead. Obama repeatedly gave shout-outs to the Clintons, which should have helped. Now it's entirely up to Obama - we will see how his speech goes tomorrow.
Still, as for a post-convention bounce for Obama - McCain's VP announcement and the Republican Convention next week would likely dampen it. But we will see... Though as David Plouffe says, the Obama campaign doesn't care about the horse-race, but are focused on 18 battleground states.
There were plenty of good people in-between the Big People. CSM Michele Jones, Lt Gen. Claudia Kennedy (first female 3-star General), Rear Admiral John Hutson (lifelong Republican) (the last two retired), Rep. Patrick Murphy, Tammy Duckworth, Beth Robinson (wife of a Marine, VA activist and MS patient).
Senator Kerry came out firing, comparing Candidate McCain to Senator McCain ("before McCain debates Obama, he has to debate himself!"), and getting the crowd to weigh in on Obama's judgment on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Georgia vs McCain's erroneous acts/proclamations on the same issues. Kerry even came out and said the candidate who wanted to raise the discourse uses only personal attacks and questions Obama's patriotism. Where was this guy in 2004?!
President Clinton got a huge ovation that last a few minutes - he's easily one of the most popular Democrats. More importantly, he strongly endorsed Senator Obama's candidacy, from his (self-described) unique perspective as one of two Democratic Presidents alive. He trumpeted Obama's policies (not generic "Democratic" policies) as superior to McCain's, which I think was very good and effective. Clinton also said Obama is Ready to be President. Now I only hope Clinton doesn't make any more ambivalent statements going forward.
Finally, Joe Biden. He seemed to stumble occasionally, but that appears to be audio glitches in C-SPAN's transmission. Biden's son did a nice introduction, and Joe continued in the personal-story-vein, describing his childhood and his relationship with his mother ("if a bigger boy knocked me down, my mother told me to bloody his nose so I could walk the street the next day!") Described ordinary people worrying about their situation, immediate and future concerns. He also attacked John McCain, on his continuation of the Iraq War, on his (lack of) understanding of the economy, his support of the Bush tax cuts, his opposition to raising the minimum wage, and contrasted McCain's record with Obama's:
"...on the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was proven right."
The speech might have been delivered better (which would have really brought the house down), but the content seemed quite good. And the NYT has picked up this impression - that Biden did what was needed - which will be good in driving the narrative.
It was great to see Mama Biden and Obama-Uncle Charles Payne. And the ending visual of Obama with the Family Biden was beautiful.
Some people (like Pat Buchanan on MSNBC!) criticize the Convention for not attacking McCain enough. However, the Convention is keeping Obama's promise of a relatively clean campaign, while still drawing a contrast with McCain and tying McCain to Bush (repeated Freudian slips of "George - I mean, John McCain!") And most importantly, I think Party Unity might have been achieved, except for a small minority of recalcitrant Clintonistas (aka PUMAs).
If most of Hillary Clinton's supporters, both women and senior citizens, come back to the fold, and I think Joe Biden can really help with the 65+-group, then Obama will have a much easier time ahead. Obama repeatedly gave shout-outs to the Clintons, which should have helped. Now it's entirely up to Obama - we will see how his speech goes tomorrow.
Still, as for a post-convention bounce for Obama - McCain's VP announcement and the Republican Convention next week would likely dampen it. But we will see... Though as David Plouffe says, the Obama campaign doesn't care about the horse-race, but are focused on 18 battleground states.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
I am furious!
[Not that I can do much about it.]
This morning's news brings the story of folks in Santa Barbara forced to live in their cars in parking lots, after losing (in some cases, jobs and subsequently,) their homes. [CNN story, via LAT.] This, in the USA. Amazing! So the possibility that the next President would be someone who self-admittedly doesn't know much about economics, and is advised by lobbyists and ex-legislators who have played a major role in precipitating the current home foreclosure crisis and have been lobbying Congress on behalf of the affected banks... is downright scary. [MSNBC story, via TPM.]
And that brings me to this morning's news about the seemingly-endless Democratic primary season. Democratic legal-beagles have put forth a 38-page memo which states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee, which meets May 31, cannot award more than 50% of the delegates from the disqualified FL and MI primaries (how to apportion them is another matter altogether). HOWEVER - the Credentials Committee, whose decision have to be approved by the Democratic Convention, can restore 100% of the FL and MI delegations.
What does this mean? Of late, Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as the new MLK, fighting for the civil rights of Florida and Michigan voters, and demanding that the full delegations be seated (never mind that FL/MI broke the rules, and she herself said - at a more comfortable position in the race - that the FL/MI elections would not count.) The Democratic legal memo says this cannot happen before the Convention. Ergo, she can fight all the way to August if she wants.
[UPDATE: Just saw this NPR story that describes Senator Clinton's turn-about on FL/MI.]
People who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Three elections in recent memory have gone to the convention - Dems in 1972 and 1980, and the GOP in 1976. In 1972, the anti-McGovern forces tried to change the allocation of California's delegation (which at that time was winner-take-all). This movement was apparently spearheaded by now-ex-President Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Senator Ted Kennedy fought President Carter all the way to the Convention. In 1976, President Ford had more delegates than now-ex-President Reagan, but not enough to secure the nomination; hence, they fought it out on the Convention floor.
If you haven't figured out the trend already - the eventual nominee lost all three times. Now, in two of those elections, the opposing candidate ran again the next cycle, and won. So... is that what Senator Clinton has learned from these events - destroy Senator Obama's chances for this November, so she can run in 2012? Never mind that in the interim, the country will be governed nominally by an economic novice and in reality by unaccountable, behind-the-scenes lobbyists and ex-lobbyists, who couldn't care less about the rising unemployed and homeless?
If that is indeed the case, then I seriously doubt Senator Clinton will have the luck of Presidents Carter and Reagan. Not by pissing off the most loyal Democratic voting block (African-Americans vote 9:1 for Democrats, compared with 3:2 or even 1:1 for Women), and not by turning off younger voters who prefer Senator Obama 3:1.
After all (as I have said before), Senator Clinton can continue to blame sexism and misogyny for her loss this year, but the fact is, her own campaign mismanagement screwed up her chances. And no matter who is to blame - Penn, Solis Doyle, President Clinton, whoever - the buck eventually stops with Senator Clinton.
Some interesting reads:
Roland Martin says that for the ClintonS, it is the ClintonS first, the Party be damned.
Marjorie Valbrun (agreeing with other XX-ers) over at the XX Factor on Slate.com says that Senator Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she mentioned Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination. Melinda Henneberger says Americans tend to see no evil, even if the intentions were not good. (I myself was willing to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt - but there is a pattern here of saying things first and asking forgiveness later. That seems to be the Clinton way.)
Lawrence Bobo at TheRoot.com says Senator Clinton should learn about the function of the hook at the Apollo.
Finally, for all those who say there will never be another female candidate for POTUS - Dahlia Lithwick presents an excellent rebuttal.
This morning's news brings the story of folks in Santa Barbara forced to live in their cars in parking lots, after losing (in some cases, jobs and subsequently,) their homes. [CNN story, via LAT.] This, in the USA. Amazing! So the possibility that the next President would be someone who self-admittedly doesn't know much about economics, and is advised by lobbyists and ex-legislators who have played a major role in precipitating the current home foreclosure crisis and have been lobbying Congress on behalf of the affected banks... is downright scary. [MSNBC story, via TPM.]
And that brings me to this morning's news about the seemingly-endless Democratic primary season. Democratic legal-beagles have put forth a 38-page memo which states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee, which meets May 31, cannot award more than 50% of the delegates from the disqualified FL and MI primaries (how to apportion them is another matter altogether). HOWEVER - the Credentials Committee, whose decision have to be approved by the Democratic Convention, can restore 100% of the FL and MI delegations.
What does this mean? Of late, Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as the new MLK, fighting for the civil rights of Florida and Michigan voters, and demanding that the full delegations be seated (never mind that FL/MI broke the rules, and she herself said - at a more comfortable position in the race - that the FL/MI elections would not count.) The Democratic legal memo says this cannot happen before the Convention. Ergo, she can fight all the way to August if she wants.
[UPDATE: Just saw this NPR story that describes Senator Clinton's turn-about on FL/MI.]
People who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Three elections in recent memory have gone to the convention - Dems in 1972 and 1980, and the GOP in 1976. In 1972, the anti-McGovern forces tried to change the allocation of California's delegation (which at that time was winner-take-all). This movement was apparently spearheaded by now-ex-President Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Senator Ted Kennedy fought President Carter all the way to the Convention. In 1976, President Ford had more delegates than now-ex-President Reagan, but not enough to secure the nomination; hence, they fought it out on the Convention floor.
If you haven't figured out the trend already - the eventual nominee lost all three times. Now, in two of those elections, the opposing candidate ran again the next cycle, and won. So... is that what Senator Clinton has learned from these events - destroy Senator Obama's chances for this November, so she can run in 2012? Never mind that in the interim, the country will be governed nominally by an economic novice and in reality by unaccountable, behind-the-scenes lobbyists and ex-lobbyists, who couldn't care less about the rising unemployed and homeless?
If that is indeed the case, then I seriously doubt Senator Clinton will have the luck of Presidents Carter and Reagan. Not by pissing off the most loyal Democratic voting block (African-Americans vote 9:1 for Democrats, compared with 3:2 or even 1:1 for Women), and not by turning off younger voters who prefer Senator Obama 3:1.
After all (as I have said before), Senator Clinton can continue to blame sexism and misogyny for her loss this year, but the fact is, her own campaign mismanagement screwed up her chances. And no matter who is to blame - Penn, Solis Doyle, President Clinton, whoever - the buck eventually stops with Senator Clinton.
Some interesting reads:
Roland Martin says that for the ClintonS, it is the ClintonS first, the Party be damned.
Marjorie Valbrun (agreeing with other XX-ers) over at the XX Factor on Slate.com says that Senator Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she mentioned Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination. Melinda Henneberger says Americans tend to see no evil, even if the intentions were not good. (I myself was willing to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt - but there is a pattern here of saying things first and asking forgiveness later. That seems to be the Clinton way.)
Lawrence Bobo at TheRoot.com says Senator Clinton should learn about the function of the hook at the Apollo.
Finally, for all those who say there will never be another female candidate for POTUS - Dahlia Lithwick presents an excellent rebuttal.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Revisiting Senator Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech
Came across an article in Chicago Magazine on The [Other] Speech - Senator Obama's keynote at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The speech that set him on the path to his current candidacy for the White House. Rocketed him - literally overnight - from a little-known Illinois State Senator to the rock star today. And from being broke, dispirited and suffering the ignominy of a maxed-out credit card at the 2000 Democratic Convention, to the US Senate and possibly in a few months, the US Presidency.
The article itself talks about how that speech came about - the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and politics behind getting Senator Obama the keynote slot; how the speech was written and edited; his troubles during rehearsals; and some analysis of the speech itself - how Senator Obama started out a little flat, but something goes off in the middle of the speech, like a switch has been flipped.
About 4 minutes into the second video, comes a moment where Senator Obama really catches fire, IMHO. He starts swaying, almost dancing, as he talks about his core message and vision - about there not being a liberal America and a conservative America, but a United States of America... No red states and blue states, but a United States of America... Not a White America, or a Black America, or a Latino America, or an Asian America, but the United States of America.
And a new star was born.
The following videos were posted by OregonforObama:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Enjoy!
The article itself talks about how that speech came about - the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and politics behind getting Senator Obama the keynote slot; how the speech was written and edited; his troubles during rehearsals; and some analysis of the speech itself - how Senator Obama started out a little flat, but something goes off in the middle of the speech, like a switch has been flipped.
About 4 minutes into the second video, comes a moment where Senator Obama really catches fire, IMHO. He starts swaying, almost dancing, as he talks about his core message and vision - about there not being a liberal America and a conservative America, but a United States of America... No red states and blue states, but a United States of America... Not a White America, or a Black America, or a Latino America, or an Asian America, but the United States of America.
And a new star was born.
The following videos were posted by OregonforObama:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
