Not a Big Truck

Here is the speech from last night.  It was solid.

Clinton nailed it tonight.  Positioned himself as passing the torch, as the father figure who has faced what Obama now faces and who will help guide him through it.  The speech benefits him but also benefits Obama and the Democrats.  It had some necessary political shots, but intelligently spelled out what is at stake and why Obama must be elected and is ready to lead.

The money line: “People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”

Bill brought it.

P.S.  John Kerry is speaking now and is hammering McCain.  Built the theme of how Candidate McCain hates the maverick, Senator McCain.  It was well-done and even joked about the “was for it before I was against it” thing.  Also made the important point that McCain was against Rovian tactics when they were used against him in 2000, but now that he is the candidate he is more than comfortable to use Rovian attacks on Obama.

Putting forward one hell of a personal, biographical defense of Obama, fighting against the idea that Obama is an elitist. He is going through the family history, the abandonment by his father, and Obama’s desire to give back to his community. Loving this speech too.

He has a chance to bring the house down tonight.  He had some bumpy moments during the campaign and word has it he is still angry with the Obama campaign.  He could give a bland speech talking about unity and defending his record. 

Or he could really go for it, skewer McCain, prop up the party, praise Obama, and use his natural political talents to express the empathy that Senator Obama struggles to demonstrate.  Pointing out how Obama’s policies will directly address the pain that people are feeling could go a long way to firing up the base and bringing home working-class Democrats. Bill Clinton, especially in light of Hillary’s speech last night, could use his speech as a way to change the narrative.  This primary was seen as Obama overcoming the Clinton dynasty.  With solid support, with the Clintons positioning themselves as Obama’s strongest backers, they could transform from the defeated to those who pass the torch.  Not to mention, such strong support would position the Clintons well for their future in Democratic politics.

We will see how it goes.

Here are a couple of Bill moments, expressing his empathy in the debate and showing some fire dealing with a heckler in the other.

Ted Stevens won his primary battle.  Polls show Stevens trailing his opponent, Democrat Mark Begich, in most of the polls.  If Stevens is found guilty, the Republicans are in deep trouble up there.  Enough to move the state to Obama? I don’t know, but I still think Obama should visit.

Saw this on the Daily Dish today. 

“Look, I owe the American people an apology. If I had beaten the old man you’d’ve never heard of the kid and you wouldn’t be in this mess. So it’s all my fault and I feel that very, very strongly,” - Michael Dukakis

It is increasingly becoming clear that the McCain campaign, knowing that if this election is going to be about the issues or John McCain, then Republicans are in trouble, has decided to throw out any and every charge possible at Obama no matter how false or how negative.  Some of the charges may stick (Obama is an elitist) others may not (Obama is a Muslim). 

The constant attacks seem to keep the attention on Obama.  McCain, even when shown to be outright lying, manages to get the “oh, he is war hero and is honorable” treatment and would never intentionally lie, but is being forced into going negative because of his underdog status.

I think Obama will win this election, but it may be closer than it should be, simply because McCain gets a free pass on his tactics.  The POW shield and his underdog status provide him with a lot of flexibility in his campaigning.

Brian Schweitzer, the Governor of Montana, delivered this solid speech.  It’s the best I’ve heard from a pol at this convention so far.  Exciting, funny, engaging, and surprisingly substantive on energy questions. I wish the major cable networks would show these speeches as well, rather than just showing pundits speculating about what the Clintons will do and why McCain is so close in the polls. 

 I hope this guy can deliver Montana.

Via Reuters:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.

The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos’ National Football League team plays.

Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington’s Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party’s nomination for president.

He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor. …

Once Obama speaks, confetti will rain down on him and fireworks will be fired off from locations around the stadium wall.

I am afraid that the Obama campaign is overdoing the pomp and circumstance again.

The description of the stage and podium reminds me of a blunder made by the Obama team earlier this summer: they designed a special Obama seal, resembling the presidential seal but in all blue and carrying the words “Obama for America” as well as the Latin phrase “Vero Possumus” (”yes we can”), and affixed it to his podium.

The seal practically screamed “arrogant” and “presumptuous” and Obama was quickly and widely slammed for using it.  It disappeared within a few days of its introduction, but not without boosting, however slightly, the image of Obama that the McCain campaign is increasingly pushing: overhyped, egotistical, a slick package with not much inside.

And, of course, there was in late July Obama’s speech in Berlin before a screaming crowd of two hundred thousand Germans.  McCain subsequently used images from that speech in the now-notorious “Celebrity” ad featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.  (”He’s the biggest celebrity in the world.  But is he ready to lead?”)  Whether or not that ad played a direct role in the recent tightening of the presidential race, it was successful in putting Obama’s supposed arrogance and unjustified egoism — exemplified by that speech in Berlin — at the center of our national political conversation for a short time.

To be clear, I don’t think there was anything wrong in a moral sense with Obama giving that speech; being popular with our allies is a good thing, and celebrity status is not bad per se.  But from a political perspective, it seems to have been a questionable decision at best.  What did the Obama team believe was the perceived benefit of giving that speech?  The only explanation I can think of is that they thought it would make him look presidential, but that is a goal that was by all accounts fully accomplished during the other, more diplomat-like segments of his international tour.

On the other hand, the drawbacks of that speech are clear in hindsight and I have to think that they were foreseeable.  As much as I like Obama and believe that he is our best option for president, the reality is that although he may have good judgment, as exemplified by his opposition of the Iraq War, he has virtually zero foreign policy credentials, aside from having majored in international relations in college.  He has served in politics at a level higher than the state legislature for less than four years.  It’s not unreasonable for some folks to be wondering, “Who is this guy?”  And if they are asking that, you don’t want one of their first impressions of him to be something as unusual and as extremely un-humble as speaking in front of 200,000 people in a foreign country that the vast majority of Americans will never be able to visit.  None of our previous presidents ever got crowds that big, much less before they actually became president.  Why is this necessary, and who does this guy think he is?

More than a few commentators have attributed a “messiah complex” to Obama and his campaign.  I suspect this is more true of the people working for Obama than of the man himself, though anyone running for president obviously has an ego of unhealthy proportions.  But it’s a criticism of which Obama needs to be very mindful.  While his success has been predicated in large part on his powerful oratory and ability to galvanize masses of people, the line between extraordinary popularity and cult-figurehood is a dangerously fine one.

In Berlin, the campaign spent thousands of dollars renting cranes to mount cameras high above the crowd to capture majestic panoramic shots of the masses surrounding their idol.  This Thursday in Denver, the $75,000 SkyCam, familiar to NFL fans, will be swooping above the field as the junior senator from Illinois addresses the multitudes before him.  Bill Clinton says he won’t be there, but I’m sure he’ll be able to catch some highlights later in a McCain ad.

There is a reason why senators have a difficult time being elected president.  Often they carry with them long voting records that hang around their necks and expose them to a whole lot of criticism–both fair and unfair.

The current campaign is historic for many reasons, but one reason that is often overlooked is that for the first time since 1960, we will elect a senator to be president.  Obama, however, is atypical of most senators in that due to his short time in the senate, he has a limited voting record for his opponents to criticize.

John McCain’s record is substantial.  But an interesting element of this campaign–part of this is because the media focuses mostly on Obama and his story–is that McCain’s record and experience has a huge gap.  The media treats McCain as though he was a POW, returned home, and immediately became the Maverick that we supposedly saw in the late 90s and early 2000s. What about the nearly three decades in between and all the votes? Mostly ignored.

How many Americans know that McCain opposed creating a federal holiday in memory of Martin Luther King Jr? He has recently stated that it was a mistake, but opposed the effort in the Congress until the late 1980s.

How many Americans know that McCain opposed sanctions against apartheid South Africa?

How many female Clinton supporters, who claim to cherish reproductive rights, know McCain’s record on the right to choose? From McCain’s own campaign website:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

He has also claimed that he wishes to appoint judges to SCOTUS like Alito and Roberts, who both seem to be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.  It is likely that the next president will be appointing justices to replace liberal justices already on the court.  Stevens and Ginsburg are seen by many as the most likely to retire in the near future.  Allowing McCain to replace one of these justices could lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned.  It seems that Clinton supporters are oblivious to this.

McCain has also supported efforts in the past to privatize social security. I wonder how many of his older supporters are aware of that? He now doesn’t like using the term “privatize” and, in fact, information on his Social Security plan on his website seems to be placed on the back burner.

These are just a few issues that have been ignored.  It’s too bad people aren’t focusing some more on McCain’s policies. My guess is that the numbers in the election would begin to look like a race between a generic Dem and a generic Rep.  While Obama would dominate on the issues, it seems as though he will have to win on personality.

Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.  I wonder if this is in anyway payback for or at least justified by the American recognition of Kosovo. There are certainly differences that may justify one recognition and not the other (I am not familiar with Georgian internal politics).  But, as always, there are risks to interfering with the internal affairs of sovereign states.  It is difficult to make a credible argument against Russia when, from their perspective, we have supported illegitimate seccession efforts in other states.

Of course, there are times when such intervention in sovereign states seems entirely appropriate if not morally necessary. There are negative consequences for such intervention, however, even when such intervention is morally justified.