On the Media

In defense of the media, Joe Klein wrote this, responding to the orchestrated attack by McCain and the Republican convention: "There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme. "

In his convention wrap-up Wednesday, Brian Williams of NBC quoted that paragraph in full. According to one report, when Sarah Palin criticized the media from the podium, the shouted approval from the crowd included some hostile chants of NBC, NBC.

On the minus side, and it's a big one, I was very disappointed--though not thoroughly surprised--that the media did not strongly cover the arrest of Amy Goodman and members of her reporting and production staff from Democracy Now! Whatever their politics, the media should defend these reporters, and they don't appear to be doing so. Moreover, in the absense of media outcry, felony charges against Goodman and the others are still pending, they have not been dropped.

Where Palin is Failin

Tonight she's the center of attention, and we're likely to see her whip the hard right crowd into a frenzy. But including Palin on the ticket has its costs:

1. The national security wing of the Republican party, with a VP nominee that is less qualified to be commander in chief than anyone ever within a heartbeat of that office. The "open mike" comments of a couple of longtime GOPer insiders that are making the blog rounds today is but one indication that this is being taken seriously.

2. environmentalists who thought that McCain was pretty good on the environment for a Republican. Whatever hope McCain had of picking up some college student votes is now gone.

3. Older voters who are skeptical of Obama's experience, and aren't hoodwinked by talking points saying hers is equivalent or better. They've been hearing about Obama for at least a year, and they never heard of Palin. They know all too well what that heartbeat means. They also have to wonder about McCain's judgment in doing this.

4. Women who resent the cynicism of this pick. Women who would like to have the right to choose. Women who right now are calling in to talk shows expressing their misgivings about a woman with a Downs Syndrome infant, and a teenage daughter about to give birth, who is suddenly thrown into an intense presidential campaign.

5. If today's revelation about Palin being present for an overtly anti-Jewish sermon make the rounds--and in certain parts of Florida, for instance, that's pretty much guaranteed--then Jewish voters are not going to support McCain--with Palin as the deal-breaker.


The number I'm looking for right now is the TV ratings. The preliminary indications from the rough broadcast network ratings (excluding cable, and since CNN has been beating the networks at times, that's significant) show last night's audience was smaller than for any night of the Dem convention. Everyone is expecting a big audience tonight for Palin--but how big is big? I think the ratings are going to be a more significant indicator than daily flucuations in the tracking polls.

The Real Story???

Failin but not Flailin?

Except with the very hard core Republican base, the Palin VP pick is failing. The latest to weigh in is the New York Times editorial this morning:

If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

But all the revelations of the past few days, could yet be followed by redemption. And that's perhaps the scariest part of this whole repulsive episode.

Sarah Palin is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention tonight. She hasn't been heard from in days. She cancelled all scheduled interviews and appearances. So the stage is set.

If she gives a rousing good speech, will all be forgiven? Will the media as well as the GOPers in the room forget that she is the most extreme Rabid Right vice presidential candidate in history?

That she believes God makes political decisions. That she supports teaching creationism as science, and doesn't believe the science of global heating. That a librarian who wouldn't let her censor books in the public library in the town where she was mayor deserved to be fired for that. That her beliefs mean that rape or incest victims can't legally have the choice to terminate that pregnancy, that birth control should not be taught in schools, and that pregnant teenagers should not be helped if they are in need? It's her God's way--her interpretation of her God's way--or you get fired, you're on your own, or you go to jail?

The bar is now so low, and the attention so pitched, that the reviews of her speech can be written right now. She's feisty, she's funny, she's poignant, she's real, she can dish out the red meat, she's a breath of fresh air. That she's also ignorant, out of her depth, a religious zealot whose dogmatic decision-making can be masked by the apparent pragmatism of the image she assumes. Sarah Palin is not a joke. She is dangerous.

John McCain, already an old and frequently addled man with a hair-trigger temper and no center to him except blind egotism and a heart of bile and resentment he's learned to mask in affable smiles and a soft voice, has shown himself to be even more cynical than Cheney. Only a cynical opportunist and a reckless gambler would nominate a completely unqualified and unknown person for vice president, and force his party to squirm through idiotic lies and transparently dishonest gambits (every criticism of Palin is sexism--those sexist liberals! After being lambasted for decades because they promoted sexual equality, now liberals are chauvanists! These people really have no shame.)

Once again the Republican Party is the party of resentment, the party of unconsciousness and projection, of primitive rage masquerading as religion. The march to the Dark Ages could get its clarion call tonight. And the media, caring only about a sensational story line, will amplify it.

Failin





Leading the CBS Evening News tonight

Palin On

She is the governor elected to throw out the corrupt, who is under investigation for acts of corruption. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She's supposed to support McCain's supposed campaign against earmarks, and in today's Washington Post: "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.

In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money." McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. "

And in the department of "Ya think?" The New York Times intones: "A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket."

Palin Pre-Panned



Two of MSNBCs more conservative commentators
are among those panning Palin as vp choice, before
McCain announced her. Several therefore were
against her before they were for her. TPM catalogs
the Palin revelations of just today.

Bounce

Update: Chris Bowers makes this point: these polls show the "undecideds" shrinking in number, so the Obama bounce is actually larger--and maybe longer lasting--than it appears at first. "Relative to the number of undecideds needed to win the election, Obama's advantage has actually quadrupled."


The standard for bounce measurement is Gallup, and today's USA Today/Gallup poll story begins like this: "The Democratic National Convention significantly boosted Americans' views of Barack Obama as a strong leader who "shares your values" and can manage the economy and Iraq, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Saturday and Sunday finds.Republican John McCain's advantage in handling terrorism was dramatically reduced and his "unfavorable" rating ticked up to its highest level this year."

On personal characteristics, Obama has eliminated McCain's advantage over him as "a strong and decisive leader." By 46%-44%, those surveyed say that characteristic applies more to Obama than McCain. Before the convention, McCain held an eight-point advantage. Obama has a 13-point advantage as someone who "shares your values," double the edge he held before the convention. He has an eight-point advantage as someone who is "honest and trustworthy; before the convention, they were ranked equally on that quality."

Obama leads by 7 points, and significantly, is at 50% (50-43%.) Crossing the 50% threshhold would be better, but this is good news. It also factors in immediate reaction to the Palin pick.

Though the CNN poll yesterday showed negligible movement, two other polls today showed Obama did get a convention bounce. The Gallup tracking poll shows a 4 point bounce, "fairly typical" of past conventions. It's Obama 49% to McCain 43%. A CBS poll gives Obama an 8 point lead, 48-40%. Obama made significant gains among women and independents in this poll.

The convention bounce is usually temporary, but I am still looking for the point where Obama consolidates a lead. It's true that these national polls don't mean a lot--state by state means more, and even those don't always reflect reality, based on models used, cell phones, etc. But people notice the national polls, if not on their own then through media coverage. And people are more comfortable with their voting decision if it is shared by others. This used to be called the bandwagon effect. It's about enthusiasm as well as numbers.

So far enthusiasm seems to be holding. The Gallup: In the poll, Democrats continue to benefit from a "enthusiasm gap." By 57%-28%, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year. By 47%-39%, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they are less enthusiastic than usual.

How people feel about qualities and issues can also change, but gaining ground in these areas can be like gas prices--when they go down, they don't end up where they were before they started going up.

Obama is more patient about this than I am. He doesn't expect things to take shape until mid October, according to his 60 Minutes interview yesterday.

Palin Drone

More reaction. Reported by Time correspondents: Another week, another Frank Luntz/AARP focus group of undecided voters--this one in Minneapolis and with some bad news for John McCain: they don't like the choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain; about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain. They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin...

This reinforces my feeling that the Palin ploy was going to work worst with the demographic that Obama seemed to be having the most trouble with: older voters. Palin may help in Alaska (but maybe not), but she may have lost Florida, and there are a lot more older voters in PA than Rabid Right true believers.

This from Joshua Green via Ambinder, reporting from the GOPer convention. These are Republicans he's talking about, remember: Most Republicans have never met Sarah Palin and are processing the news of her selection as VP with the stunned-but-well-meaning emotions you might feel toward an acquaintance who just came out of the closet. Those given to caution when discussing such things at a brunch with journalists put a hopeful, might-be-a-stroke-of-genius spin on their astonishment. Those less inhibited--who are also better people--generally see the pick as irresponsible and politically motivated (and not in a good way). No one believes Palin was fully vetted. And no one has any idea how this will play out.

The best analogy I heard came from a bright young Republican operative, who--borrowing from the sports world, as the secret Republican-operative rulebook stipulates one must--likened the Palin pick to an NFL team using the top pick in the draft to select an unheralded, but promising, player from a small college. Looks great on paper: you just hope and pray they can adjust to the speed of the professional game. It's a useful analogy because it gives a good sense of the odds--for every Phil Simms (quick: name his alma mater*) there have been countless small-college players who put up great stats but never caught on in the pros.

Palin Comparison

The reviews are coming in, decidedly mixed, trending negative. Despite some reports of an enthusiastic crowd in Washington, PA (though when Palin mentioned Hillary, the crowd booed) and among the Rabid Right, the first polls are mixed and the first editorials are negative. Historians are blown away, but not in a good way, cf: “ I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major-party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.

A lacerating review in Salon that begins, "It is hard to think of a more cynical and contemptuous political act this year than John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate," is one thing. But big thumbs down from the two biggest newspapers in Alaska, something else. Editorials in other newspapers were no better.

Polls show the lowest percentage ever recorded for confidence that Palin is qualified, and slightly more women seem turned off--or angered--by the choice than view it positively. 9% of female Hillary voters are more inclined to vote McCain now--but 15% are LESS likely. This political analysis in Politico about why McCain made this choice is pretty acute.

But the bigger news at this hour is hurricane Gustav, a major threat to the Gulf and zeroing in on New Orleans, though it may make landfall a little west or as far west as Texas. It doesn't necessarily get better after it hits Monday night, either. Jeff Masters at Wunderblog suggests it could go offshore again and gather strength for a return somewhere (just as Katrina did), influenced perhaps by the storm right behind it, currently tropical storm Hanna.

Sunday the Republicans will decide how best to exploit the storm for political advantage. McCain and Palin are already planning a photo op in Mississippi, and McCain's acceptance address may be a movable feast: anywhere there happens to be enough photogenic wreckage. Like everything else dramatic, this is unpredictable. The split screen coverage of the storm and the convention could get the convention more viewers than it would have alone. But how will viewers react? Will they believe the images the Republicans hope to try to manufacture, of GOPer led state and feds doing a heck of a job? Or will it look like the Curse of Katrina?

Frank Rich has outdone himself this Sunday--I can't quote this without quoting it all, so go read it. He's right that the hot air networks got it wrong about the conflict at the Dem convention--I was particularly offended by the comparisons with 1968, when some of my compatriots had their heads smashed. But the phony drama may have gotten more folks to tune in.

This is the wonderful short bio that ran before Obama's speech on Thursday.

Obamacans

While all the political calculations about Sarah Palin go on, you have to wonder what's going on in the mind of, say, Chuck Hagel. Here's a Republican U.S. Senator who seems genuinely torn on who to support for President: his old friend and fellow GOPer, John McCain, or Barack Obama, who he traveled to Iraq with, who he has defended against scurrilous attack, and who he agrees with on a number of issues.

Did Sarah Palin just make up his mind? Responsible Republicans who care about foreign policy issues, the defense of the country, the role of America in the world, must be appalled by this choice. And the judgment will come down, not on Sarah Palin, but on John McCain for choosing her to be a potential heartbeat from the presidency, when that heartbeat belongs to a 72 year old with a history of cancer.

Chuck Hagel--and Colin Powell, and perhaps others--may forgive McCain many things, but can they forgive him this?

Bush-Cheney marginalized Republicans like Hagel, Powell, Lugar. McCain, who was once closer to their point of view than Bush-Cheney's, may have pushed them completely out.

This may not matter much. I'm not sure how many votes Chuck Hagel brings with him to whoever he supports. And though he and Powell may wind up supporting Obama in public, it's not clear that many others will follow, in public. After all, responsible Republicans have stood by while Bush-Cheney have shredded the Constitution, institutionalized torture and domestic spying, and de-professionalized the Dept. of Justice and who knows how many other departments with neocon Evangelical loyalty tests. They might just stand by as John McCain demonstrates contempt for the office of President.

Then again, they might not.

so you tell me, is this a parody or not?
Because I truly can't tell. What a world.

Thirty-Eight Million

To the record 84,000 who saw Obama's acceptance speech live, add another first: the biggest television audience for an acceptance address ever. At an estimated 38 million, it was a bigger American audience than watched the opening of the Olympics, the Oscars or the finale of American Idol. It is twice as many people who watched Kerry's acceptance speech four years ago.

Sarah Palin may have turned the head of the news people today, but for most people who even heard about it, the response was more likely to be: who?

Palin

John McCain named Sarah Palin as his VP. My first thought was judging McCain's assessment of the race: he doesn't think he's close. This is a big gamble, with potentially big dividends and drawbacks. It also may be a short term gain. The one area where it can be safely predicted that Palin will have lasting benefit to McCain is with Evangelicals and other anti-choicers.

It could be brilliant, if it works. It steals the morning after buzz of Obama's speech, although 36 million Americans watched it-- a lot more than saw McCain's announcement. It's great counter-programming: an old/young ticket to go against the Obama young/old ticket, but with the wild card of a woman candidate who is anti-choice. It's going to make the VP debate quite tricky: Palin has zero foreign policy cred and Biden has a lot--can he keep from looking like he's bullying her?

She might be able to energize McCain, and give some new life to the maverick image. But longterm, her inexperience is likely to be the deal-breaker for working voters. I don't think she'll play in PA. But you have to give the McCainers credit--they've lived to play another day.

Update: Pat Buchanan, who is ecstatic about this choice since she is a follower of his politically, did say one astute thing about Sarah Palin's utility: McCain can send her to the conservative audiences he needs but isn't all that comfortable with--and they aren't all that comfortable with him. That frees him to concentrate more on swing states and independents, where he tries to revive his maverick image. The question is whether he's able to change directions of his campaign in time, after the Dems hammered him for a week about being a Bush clone. If he indeed pivots from the experience mantra, and positions himself in a more positive vein as a change candidate, then the dynamics change a bit. But enough? It depends on whether perception of him from 2000, as a maverick, can be successfully revived. Suddenly, the campaign becomes no longer about Obama as much as McCain.

After today, Palin has the potential to become this year's Dan Quayle. She has already admitted that she knows little about Iraq, even though her own son will soon be deployed there. I think most mothers of soldiers, let alone vp candidates, inform themselves about Iraq.

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek is underwhelmed: Happy birthday, Johnny Mac! You're 72 now, a cancer survivor, and a presidential candidate who has said on many occasions that the most important criteria for picking a vice president is whether he or she could immediately step in if something happened to the president. Your campaign against Barack Obama is based on the simple idea that he is unready to be president. So you've picked a running mate who a year and a half ago was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 8,500 people. You've selected a potential leader of the free world who knows little or nothing about the major issues of the day beyond energy. Oh, and she's being probed in her state for lying and abuse of power.

The problem is that politics, like all professions, isn't as easy as it looks. Palin's odds of emerging unscathed this fall are slim. In fact, she's been all but set up for failure. ..But what does she know about Iranian nukes, health care or the future of entitlement programs? And that's just a few of the 20 or so national issues on which she will be expected to show basic competence. The McCain camp will have to either let her wing it based on a few briefing memos (highly risky) or prevent her from taking questions from reporters (a confession that she's unprepared). Either way, she's going to belly-flop at a time when McCain can least afford it.

Alter also goes into detail to show how the current ethics investigation of Palin in Alaska could blow up in McCain's face as well as hers.

By the way, I just saw the PBS News Hour and interviews on the convention with several columnists from papers around the country, including Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Too bad--that paper has a number of astute writers. Kelly isn't one of them. He wasn't even well informed enough to know that nobody is yet measuring the convention bump in the polls--that won't be until Monday at the earliest. Although Obama is eight points ahead in the daily tracking today.

Young Barack may have had dreams of glory, but
probably not of the home run he hit in his
acceptance speech Thursday night before
84,000 fans at Mile High stadium.

Mile High Home Run

The TV commentators gushed, even Pat Buchanan was beside himself with enthusiasm. And now the print reviews are starting to come in, with raves like this and this and this from the New York Times, this and this and especially this (E.J. Dionne) from the Washington Post, and this from the Guardian, just to skim off the top of the list.
(A lot of them have photos and excerpts, but not as good as mine.)

The points of view are interesting. Pat Buchanan thought it was centrist, Dionne a fulfillment of Civil Rights, and Kos is thrilled that it's solidly progressive. And they all loved it. So did T. Goddard, and he supplies some other gushers.

In a way I find all this amusing, because my first impression of the speech was that it was Barack's Greatest Hits. Almost everything in it I've heard before, which supports my contention that the people braying for Obama to say this or that just haven't been listening. David Gergen likened it to a symphony, and that's a great way of describing it: it was new in its combinations, its moods and sharpened expression. It was what he chose to put in it, how he arranged it and delivered it.

With the rumor that McCain had selected Pawlenty as VP, the folks as MSNBC seemed to fear that the McCain campaign might just vaporize. The drama of the oncoming storm Gustav may be the only thing that will produce any interest in the GOP convention next week. It may not be that drastic, but I've been waiting for the point that Obama seals the deal. He may be on his way. It may not even take the debates, but I suspect it won't really be sealed until after the first one at least. But the bounce is coming, and people are going to be talking about this speech for awhile.

What seemed to interest the commentators was Obama's "new" combativeness. Some of it was new, like the word "temperament" when Obama talked about a debate on who has the temperament and judgment to be Commander in Chief. It signals an escalation--McCain campaign's attacks have been so scurrilous we may have lost track of how brutal they are. Well, temperament is a real McCain weakness (his temper or at least sourness increasingly evident to the media, as in this interview), and real weaknesses are harder to defend than fictional ones.

I've said here before however that Obama always said he would engage his opponent in the general election in ways he wouldn't engage fellow Democrats in the primary--and by the way, didn't that pay off big time? Bill Clinton, Hillary, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, etc. all made invaluable and specific contributions to his candidacy during this very successful convention. And Joe Biden is his running mate.

And I've pointed out that the pre-convention strategy involved organizing, fundraising and putting together the resume, from the overseas trip to rolling out economic and energy plans. The convention starts the head-to-head, and Obama took this on himself. Democrats are ecstatic, the media has a fight to cover, while the convention did a great job of telling and showing Obama's story, which he used to relate directly to voters with the issues.

Now Obama and Biden campaign together, starting in Pittsburgh. They'll hammer the economic issues, and I expect as we get into late September and October, the economic argument--barring intervening extra-campaign events--will increasingly focus on health care.

Finally, several of the NBC commentators--starting with Brian Williams--noted the notes in the speech that seem straight out of that wonderful couple of minutes in the film (that surprisingly they all knew as well as I do), "The American President." I pointed out the similarity of something Obama said to this speech before. I'll have to look for that post, and maybe post the YouTube clip. Later.

I've now posted my recollections of the March on Washington, with photos, here. If I get real ambitious I'll post it all here, too. Without photos, it also tops the Rescued list at Daily Kos.

I stayed up writing a recollection of the March on Washington on August 28, 1963, which I'll post later. Quotes and photos from Wednesday night are at Dreaming Up Daily.

What more can you ask of an evening that includes this from Bill Clinton?:

Everything I learned in my eight years as President and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job. Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States.

But as one of those otherwise silly commentators said, when Obama showed up (as JFK did before his stadium speech), the difference in generations was obvious, he is so clearly younger. And judging by the gambles he took in trusting these folks, pretty smart, too.

Convention Tuesday

The verdict was immediate on Hillary Clinton's speech--it was the speech of her life, and it unified the party behind Obama.

Lots of sites have the speech and the commentaries. She is certainly to be commended for doing this so well, although she could have been stronger in telling women what will happen to Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court if McCain is elected. But nobody is yet pointing out what a triumph this is for Obama. He trusted her, gave her this gig in prime time, and lots of people doubted the wisdom of it. They thought it showed weakness; he was giving the Clintons too much time and focus.

Clinton was terrific, but Barack was right. She had every reason to do what she did, for her future in the Democratic Party and her daughter's (for there were almost as many images of Chelsea in the Hillary video as Hillary), should Chelsea want one. She had lots of supporters in the hall, but even so, it was well over two-thirds Obama partisans. Still, Obama must have treated her right. He's either a magician, or a really good judge of people.

Mark Warner's keynote was pretty good--aimed at Independents, or independent minded, and on the theme of bringing people together to solve problems. Although he's from Virginia, it's a theme that plays especially well in the West.

Gov. Schweitzer was lively, Kathleen Sibelius was dull (so Barack was right about the VP too) but for all the talent, the officeholders were generally not very inspiring speakers--not like Michelle, and of course, nowhere near Barack. Somebody mentioned how far Hillary has come from being completely blown away by Bill's speaking power and style whenever they appeared together, to this speech Tuesday--very powerful, skillfully presented. So Bill has to be really good tomorrow, and Joe has to top him. And of course, Barack has to be best of all. No pressure or anything. Should be fun.

Michelle Obama showed grace, poise and star power speaking before the Democratic Convention Monday. Lots more photos at Dreaming Up Daily.

Convention Monday

It was the Kennedy family anointing the Obama family, with patriarch Teddy passing the torch. And the Obama family showing that the torch is in good hands.

The first of the Obama family to speak, and the one most ignored by commentators, was Barack's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng. First of all, none of them appeared to be thrown by speaking in that huge place, with an unimaginable TV audience. Maya is a history teacher, not a public figure. But she used the one phrase I will remember: "bounteous opportunity." It's a wonderful two word description of what has become the cliche-ridden American Dream. "Bounteous" as is abundance but also suggesting beauty.

Craig Robinson is a college basketball coach, so he's also used to speaking before people, but not in anything like this setting. He, too seemed comfortable, and he was effective. No one was more effective than his little sister, Michelle Robinson Obama. She has that star quality that jumps out at you. Maybe I'm old school, but her pace didn't vary--it was full speed ahead (which apparently it had to be, as PBS brutally cut off its coverage in the middle of Barack's video appearance afterwards.) Otherwise, she was perfect. Malia and Sasha were great, too. Malia looks like she's going to be at least as beautiful as her mother. Here's a fine Salon article that describes her speech and the reception.

Michelle's mother was a prominent voice in the video about her, and once again, she was very poised and effective. A family with a great American story, but an extraordinary and admirable family, too, if that's allowed without seeming "elitist."

Earlier, Ted Kennedy rallied the troops and passed the torch. "The dream will never die" (1980, when I campaigned for him in PA) became "the dream lives on." The memories that the speech and the Ken Burns docu that preceded it inspired were just about exhausting. I do feel emotionally drained by the evening, possibly because of all the times the dream has been deferred, and derided. Just like all the carping and nonsense coming out of the media, focus groups, GOPer ads and bitter Hillaryites. Or possibly because I didn't get enough sleep, and I have a card loaded with crap for the recycling center, sitting on a flat tire I have to deal with tomorrow.

I didn't watch the gab earlier in the day, but I gather a lot was about the Hillaryites. I doubt there's going to be much conflict visible at the convention, but the prospect of it might get people to watch who might not otherwise. Good for the networks, and if things work out well, good for the Dems.

In the middle of all this I caught the story online--which was entirely ignored by TV--of the arrest of three men for drugs and weapons, who might be involved in a plot to assassinate Obama. There's a disconnect between what some are saying, what the police say, and what the coverage has been. Police have scheduled a press conference tomorrow in Denver. HuffPost has a story about assassination coming up in focus groups, and immediately turning views on Obama sour, and emboldening McCain supporters. It's obviously a flashpoint, an alternating current of alarm and denial, despair and hope, fear and courage.

JFK to Obama: Tips on the Acceptance Speech

The last time the Democratic nominee for President gave his nomination acceptance speech in a large outdoor stadium was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy spoke at dusk in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

In the previous two elections, the Democratic nominee had been Adlai Stevenson, whose speeches were intelligent and articulate, and who could make a case for the Democratic Party agenda. But though Stevenson engendered fierce loyalties in the party, he wasn’t exciting. He didn’t move large crowds. JFK knew that he could, and this event was the signal that he would in 1960.

So that’s the meta-lesson from JFK: if you’ve got it, use it. While pundits and the hot air networks counsel Obama to reign in the rhetoric and stick to laundry lists of programs, there will be 80,000 or so people in the stadium ready to rock. They want to hear what 80,000 voices chanting “Yes, We Can!” sounds like. Obama got this far by inspiring people. If he’s going to win, he needs to motivate those who got him this far. They will help him spread the enthusiasm.

We want to hear him talk about change, about hope, about the fierce urgency of now. We want a little “Yes We Can.” Democrats should go home from Denver on fire.

Sure, the context of 2008 is different: the country was uneasy but pretty prosperous in 1960, Eisenhower was still a popular President so Nixon had advantages McCain doesn’t. But JFK was new. He was younger than Obama (though he had been in the House and Senate for 14 years.) After 7 years as VP, Nixon seemed to be a known quantity. Voters were unsure: change, or experience?

The race remained pretty even, even after the debates which historians—in retrospect—often say were decisive for JFK. But in that fall, the most obvious difference was that JFK’s crowds grew and grew, not only in size but in enthusiasm. Doubts were overcome by the contagion of hope. That’s what needs to happen this fall, particularly in October.

Then there are lessons from the speech itself…


Lesson #2: Become the leader of the party. JFK began his speech complimenting the party and the platform, and with a litany of other Democrats.

Lesson #3: Confront the elephant in the room. For JFK it was his Catholic faith. For Obama, it’s race. JFK devoted about 3 paragraphs to reassuring voters that he was independent, with his first allegiance to America. Obama is speaking on the 45h anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Obama was 2 years old. In large measure, he is a fulfillment of King’s dream, and he should own it. And he can do it within a larger context of America and the American dream.

Lesson #4: Go after the Republicans directly. JFK’s speech is remembered for introducing the “New Frontier.” (More about that coming up.) But he devoted five paragraphs in the middle of his speech to partisan rhetoric aimed at his opponent, Richard Nixon. For instance:

We know it will not be easy to campaign against a man who has spoken and voted on every side of every issue.

JFK then drew the contrast between the parties in terms that ought to be familiar today:

But we're not merely running against Mr. Nixon. Our task is not merely one of itemizing Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm do not need to tell us of their plight. The unemployed miners and textile workers know that the decision is before them in November. The old people without medical care, the families without a decent home, the parents of children without a decent school: They all know that it's time for a change.

Lesson #5: Focus on the future. That was really what distinguished JFK as a candidate, and it’s the natural move for the younger candidate to make (though in fact JFK was only 3 years younger than Nixon, and Nixon was a year younger than Obama is now.) JFK was influenced by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and his contrast of the Republicans as the party of the past and the Democrats as the party of the future. The Republicans practiced the politics of memory, he wrote in a book published a few years later, while the Democrats represent the Politics of Hope.

Here’s what JFK said:

Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

In this section of his speech, JFK sketched some of the challenges. While today scholars like to see him as a Cold Warrior, and he did talk about the need to engage Soviet expansion, he also emphasized the need for peaceful means.

The world has been close to war before, but now man, who's survived all previous threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate his species seven times over.

He spoke briefly about domestic challenges, including Civil Rights:

A peaceful revolution for human rights, demanding an end to racial discrimination in all parts of our community life, has strained at the leashes imposed by a timid executive leadership.

Then he reiterated the emphasis on change and the future:

It is time, in short for a new generation of leadership. ..The Republican nominee, of course, is a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past, the party of memory… Their pledge is to the status quo; and today there is no status quo.

Lesson #6: Articulate a vision. This is the point in the speech where JFK begins talking about the New Frontier, and he does it by anchoring it in the moment, the time and place where he is speaking:

For I stand here tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind us, the pioneers gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build our new West…

Some would say that those struggles are all over, that all the horizons have been explored, that all the battles have been won, that there is no longer an American frontier. But I trust that no one in this assemblage would agree with that sentiment; for the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won; and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier -- the frontier of the 1960's, the frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, the frontier of unfilled hopes and unfilled threats.

A little later he adds:

The New Frontier is here whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered problems of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.

Lesson #7: Include the audience, and ask not what you can do for them, but what they can do for their country:

But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises. It is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer to the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride -- It appeals to our pride, not our security. It holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

It would be easier to shrink from that new frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric -- and those who prefer that course should not vote for me or the Democratic Party.
But I believe that the times require imagination and courage and perseverance. I'm asking each of you to be pioneers towards that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age--to the stout in spirit, regardless of Party, to all who respond to the scriptural call: "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be [thou] dismayed."

That is the choice our nation must make -- a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort, between national greatness and national decline, between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of "normalcy;" between dedication and mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we shall do. And we cannot fail that trust. And we cannot fail to try.

Give me your help and your hand and your voice.”

That last phrase would be one JFK repeated many times on the campaign trail—a call to participation in his campaign.

The acceptance speech will be the first and last time of the general election campaign that the candidate has the attention of a large chunk of the electorate at one time for an uninterrupted statement of this length.

But it’s more than speaking to millions of voters, many of whom are just beginning to focus on the election. Obama’s previous big speeches were in the context of a primary campaign, when he had to distinguish himself and his message from several other candidates, and when he had particular limits on what he said about his opponents within the Democratic Party.

Now Obama can do what JFK did, and draw a direct contrast between himself as the Democratic candidate, and McCain as the Republican candidate. He can define the choice voters have in November.

But he is also speaking to Democrats and the people who have been with him so far. He can motivate them to work for him, which is especially important this year, for Obama needs highly motivated voters in several core groups, and enthusiastic volunteers to put the ground game in motion.

JFK managed to do both. Obama can, too. JFK inspired me, at 14 years old, to work for his campaign. His acceptance speech—which I recorded on our reel-to-reel tape recorder, and played for my social studies class—was a big reason why.

The Shock Doctrine

Since this blog is supposed to also be about "world affairs" a little time out at the movies. The Shock Doctrine is a book I'm on record admiring--after all, a quote from my SF Chronicle review leads the blurbs on the back of the paperback edition. But this six minute plus video can save you a lot of reading time, or just give you a great idea of what this book is about. It's time well spent.

Obama-Biden: The Maiden Voyage

Here's what Chuck Todd and his gang at First Read said about the selection of Joe Biden: As the days got nearer for the pick, it was hard to find a Democrat -- even savvy Clintonites -- who weren't hoping it would be Biden. Only the most strident Hillary supporters appear to be upset this morning. On the GOP side, the sound you heard was disappointed silence. Of everyone on the short list, the candidate many Republicans least wanted to see Obama pick was Biden.

Of the event and the speeches in Springfield, there's wasn't the only praise--all the cable bloviators said it was a success--but here's how Todd summed it up: All in all, if you believe, as I do, that the VP candidates matters most on three days, the first day, debate day and election day, then the Obama campaign has to be ecstatic about today. One goal down, two to go."

Biden contributed at least two memorable lines in his speech: "These times require more than a good soldier. They require a wise leader." ("good soldier" is especially resonant: it compliments McCain's "service," while suggesting he is Bush's "good soldier," following orders.) Also, Biden spoke about ordinary people sitting at their kitchen table, trying to figure out how to make ends meet, while McCain has to "figure out which of his seven kitchen tables to sit at."

As everyone noted, Biden hammered not on foreign policy but on economics, telling his own blue collar story as well as Obama's story. The emphasis was reinforced by every Democrat asked to comment I heard. The energy Biden brought was amazing, and riveting. If he can speak like that across the country, he can bring this message home. It's not that people know this about him--I sure didn't--but that he is able to communicate it.

Of the mass of verbiage about Biden today, I thought this story was the most revealing, especially for the ties between the Biden and Obama campaigns going back to Iowa.

By 12:40 am or so Pacific time, the text messages
and emails started going out (haven't got mine
yet though!) and the official site made the official
announcement. Update: Got my email from Barack
a little later. Says to watch at 2p. Central for their
first joint appearance.

It's Joe

Just after midnight Eastern, ABC reported that the Secret Service was converging on Joe Biden's house. Then the floodgates opened. From CNN to the New York Times, everybody had sources that confirmed that Barack Obama had chosen Senator Joe Biden for the Democratic Party VP candidate, and that Biden had accepted.

So now I guess I can turn my Blackberry off. Oh, wait. I don't have one.

Ambinder has a nice summary of some pluses and minuses. So far the pick has met with press approval, though that's fairly typical.

Me, I'm glad it's not Bayh. Or Hillary. I think it's a good reading of where the race is--Biden gives it a jolt of excitement, and neutralizes the experience nervousness on foreign policy, while bringing some economic and blue collar cred. And as I said before, they look good together, Obama-Biden is a good, strong sounding ticket. Obama was lagging among older voters, Clinton voters (pretty much the same folks) and Biden helps reassure them. With a good convention, Obama should get their votes in November.

It will be interesting to hear how Biden gets past his earlier comments on Obama's readiness for the office, etc. and how he portrays himself as outside the lobbyist influence ring, as the credit card company friendly Senator from the bank friendly state of Delaware.

He's Catholic, but strongly pro-choice, sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act. He's from Scranton, PA, and said to be popular in PA, not something I particularly remember. Maybe more in the eastern half.

What does this do to McCain's VP calculations? He can't pick a lightweight who Biden will demolish in debate. Romney is the only one who seems capable of looking like he can handle him, but Romney is such an obvious fake that Biden will chew him to pieces. But I don't see an alternative now. With the likelihood that this pick will unite the Dem base, McCain has to solidify his--and he really has no good choices. Since Obama went older, he has to go visibly younger--not another white hair. Romney isn't ideal--a lot of the base will run away from him. If McCain goes for perfect symmetry, he'll pick Pawlenty, and hope he survives his debate. Otherwise, who is there but Romney?

As for how the Biden news broke, it was the Secret Service--not part of the Obama campaign--that tipped it off, but the eagerness with which "Democratic sources" spilled it immediately afterwards, suggests to me this was part of the game plan. The east coast didn't get it until after midnight, while the West Coast got it in time for the late news, so we don't have to feel slighted by emails arriving at 4 a.m.

VP Wait

The time for the announcement to be made before the evening news is over, and a bit of information reported on CNN--if it's true--suggests why. It was reported that the process of text messaging/emailing millions of people will take several hours, perhaps four. And that the plan is to do it by time zones.

All that points to Saturday morning, so people get it when they wake up. But still, if that's the case, then the whole thing is a bit bogus, since the first text message received by a reporter will put the story on the airwaves, and most people on the announcement list will get it from the media anyway.

Watching CNN for a bit today was instructive, however. I don't know if it's because they employ Clinton whiners Begala and Carville, but their coverage has been of Clinton as much as Obama, and if that continues through the convention, it's not good. Also I didn't see anything about McCain and Housegate, even though there is apparently new information that the McCains own even more houses than previously believed.

The only new info on VP is that Pelosi's choice of Chet Edwards of Texas was vetted, and was on Obama's short list. I have to trust that this particular mistake wasn't made. Also that Hillary was never formally vetted. I've never seen such vindictive sore losers as the Clintons and their cultists. The betting money is still on Biden.

But I've got some real world errands right now. Looks like I get to sleep through the announcement later.

Update: nearly 8 p. Pacific: Multiple news media are reporting that the message will come Saturday morning, maybe 10a. eastern, though it's likely that Pacific zoners will get it later.

Several networks and sites are reporting that Tim Kaine got the call that it's not going to be him. NBC is reporting that Bayh also got that call, but Ambinder for one is being careful not to rule him out yet. As evidence of how frenzied the press is, Politico is carrying a headline saying that the AP says Bayh is out, but the accompanying story doesn't even mention Bayh. It's about Kaine.

The networks are staking out the residences of those they believe are on the short list, and so far the only place with unusual activity ("unusual" as in family members gathering--maybe it's somebody's birthday?) is Joe Biden's house. If it is Biden, at some point he'll be leaving to take a plane to Chicago, but that could be just after the online announcement. It can't be more than a two hour flight. Gates open for the Springfield event at noon Central, so that's a possible scenario.

By the way, if you saw Bill Schneider, CNN's political guru, talking about Obama's choice as either "change" or "experience," you might wonder if he's been reading this blog all week.

Not This House

VP Watch: Final Edition?

While Obama's statement about "independent" still tantalizes with the possibility of someone off the current radar, the buzz is back for Biden. Huffington Post has no fewer than 17 photos of Biden on its VP story page.

But Indiana media are convinced it's Bayh, with fresh rumors of an Indianapolis event on Saturday, as a post-Springfield event.

I think we'll know by the evening news Friday. My latest thoughts on Biden: he's passionate about Darfur, which is needed. And Biden would be fun, a charge of energy. But seemed to me that in his latest statement Obama stressed the candidate helping on the economy, and that's clearly going to be the emphasis of the rest of the campaign. So I wonder what Biden brings to that.

But I did awaken today with two conclusions: 1. I don't get to say who Obama picks, so I'll just have to live with it. and 2. When the "text message" comes (which for me will be an email) I'll probably be asleep.

Oh, and Time Magazine says it has two sources telling them that McCain's VP will be Mitt Romney. Mike Huckabee and the Evangelicals notwithstanding? Maybe it's the new poll showing Obama with a 7 point lead in Michigan, though with a lot of volatility. But Al G feels certain that the focus today on McCain not knowing how many homes he owns will doom Romney, who is also a multiple real estater.

VP Watch: All Bets Off

Obama told reporters that he's made his VP choice, but not when it will be announced. He also reportedly said this, about what his choice will say to voters:

Hopefully, the same thing that my campaign has told the American people about me. That I think through big decisions. I get a lot of input from a lot of people, and that ultimately, I try to surround myself with people who are about getting the job done, and who are not about ego, self-aggrandizement, getting their names in the press, but our focus on what's best for the American people.

I think people will see that I'm not afraid to have folks around me who complement my strengths and who are independent. I'm not a believer in a government of yes-men. I think one of the failures of the early Bush Administration was being surrounded by people who were unwilling to deliver bad news, or who were prone to simply feed the president information that confirmed his own preconceptions.

Possible translations: (a) somebody who is on the record with a different approach than Obama's, which would indicate somebody like Bayh, or a primary opponent, like Biden. (b) all bets are off. It may be somebody not on the media's short list (it was always the media's short list, remember.)

We'll know between now and Saturday morning.

Al G. and friends are reading the tea leaves of Obama's itinerary convention week, when he's touring through the Midwest. Midwestern candidate? Indiana isn't on the tour (no Bayh?) nor is Kansas (no Sebelius?) But several stops related to Tim Kaine's bio. Billings, Montana is the last stop before Denver (Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer?) Or the tour could have nothing to do with the VP nominee...

Fascinating that while yesterday EVERYBODY was talking Joe Biden, today NOBODY is. OOPS! Now on Hardball, Andrea Mitchell and somebody else say it is Biden, and the press continue to stake out Biden's house, where they see his relatives arriving. So SOMEBODYs still say Biden.

The Long Run

We pause from our obsession with possible VP candidates to offer a thought about the P candidate. There are lots of ways of looking at the past month or so of the campaign, but here's something that occurred to me: Obama spent lots of time outlining his programs and explaining them to voters, mostly in town hall and small settings. In the past week, he's faced at least two potentially hostile audiences, at a rich Orange County Evangelical church, and the VFW convention. He's lately gone directly at John McCain more than he has, but still within the context of his basic message, as when he told the vets Tuesday: "I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a Red America or a Blue America, you served the United States of America.”

Those lines got applause from the VFW, the membership of which is older and more conservative than veterans in general or other vet organizations, several of which back Obama. A followup story to the Saddleback Church forum that interviewed churchgoers on Sunday indicated that while the overwhelmingly Republican membership was still overwhelmingly for McCain, they liked Obama and his values.

As a newcomer to the national scene, and of course as a black man running for President, Obama has to present himself to voters as authentically as he can, so they will become comfortable with him. Of course a large part of the intent is to sway undecided voters to vote for him in November. But that isn't all.

Even with polls tightening at the moment, Obama remains ahead, and could very well be elected President. And after that, he will have to govern. He will have a Democratic Congress to work with probably, but his plans to transform Washington and to meet the substantial challenges that face him, require a lot of consent of the governed, as well as wide participation.

So even people who did not vote for him, like the VFW folks and Evangelicals, have to like him and respect him well enough to accept him as their President. So he may not have won a lot of votes so far. But I think he's been doing that. It's going to help him govern.

Now we're entering the real campaign, and we're going to see an Obama who engages McCain directly. McCain's campaign was fairly skillful in attacking Obama when he was trying to lay out his policies, and his choice was to step on his own message and thereby cede control of his campaign to McCain, or to let McSlur rail against him. But from now on, Obama will be making the contrast with McBush. And now some people who probably wouldn't have listened to him before, just might. And even if they wind up not voting for him, they may accept him as President more easily than they might have before.

VP Tuesday

Ambinder nailed it: AP is now reporting that Obama will return to Springfield, IL on Saturday. Ambinder figures he'll introduce his VP there, and the AP suggests that it will at least be one of their first joint appearances.

Rumor mill today so far seems to be favoring Joe Biden, with some ripples for Kathleen Sebelius. Sen. Reed of RI is back on some lists. Chris Dodd remains on some, too.

Will update as needed.

Rumor of the day for McCain is Lieberman. I'm all for it. I can't imagine a choice with more liabilities and no real advantages. Go for it!

Update: Since Ambinder proves he has a good source, I'll pass on his speculation that the announcement will be made either Saturday morning or Thursday morning, with the joint appearance on Saturday. However, Obama is going to be in Virginia all day Wed. Will he announce a non-Kaine VP right after he leaves the state on Thursday morning?

Newsweek's Howard Fineman is on the record betting that it's Biden, and that seems to be the buzz. If it is Biden, then McCain goes for Pawlenty, to match the young/older Dem ticket with the old/younger GOPer ticket. If Obama goes for Kaine, then McCain may well go for Leiberman, to present the experience contrast of two white haired white guys vs. the young black guy and his young white sidekick.

Speaking of white hair, Andrew Sullivan suggests that Biden will reassure seniors--and attract white haired ladies.

Al G. at the Field answers the question I've asked myself today--what do the Dems lose without Biden in the Senate? Apparently the answer is not much. They won't lose the seat, and though Biden is the powerful chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, the next in line is none other than Chris Dodd. That's measure for measure, at least. (And if Dodd decides to remain chair of the Banking Committee instead, next in line after him is John Kerry.)

I can't believe the buzz is about Lieberman being seriously vetted, and that Ridge is no longer in consideration. It seems more likely than McCain is just trying to puff Lieberman up. Still, I know Obama is lucky, but this would be incredible luck.

VP Monday

The New York Times and others are reporting that Obama is close to a decision, while some say he figured it out while he was in Hawaii. We're told not to hold our breaths tonight or tomorrow, but maybe Wednesday. If it is Wednesday, Obama would either be picking Kaine (since he'll be in Virginia that day, which was scheduled while he was in Hawaii ) or he'll not be in Virginia that day. If Wednesday comes and goes and Kaine hasn't been named, seems likely he won't be, ever. One report says Kaine is telling people it ain't gonna be him.

Which leaves Bayh and Biden and maybe Sebelius on the short list everybody seems to have, but nobody is really sure exists. My blahs over Bayh are widely shared, I don't see him for any reason, and Biden, while exciting, is held in some contempt in the progressive blogosphere (Kos has stomped all over him, and Kos admits he's prepared to be disappointed. He's a "change" over "experience" advocate, and he'd be happy with Sebelius, as would I.) At this point, Bill Richardson (still on some lists) is beginning to look better.

There's nothing on Obama's sked for Thursday (Friday is sked for downtime in Chicago, while somebody is saying Friday is a bad day to announce anything--though I believe a few high profile endorsements were announced on a Friday during the primaries, if I remember correctly), Ambinder reports that the Obama advance people have been recalled to Chicago, a sign that a decision is imminent, due to the need for logistical planning for the announcement. He seems to hint that Chris Dodd is still in the running, and out of the blue posts this little tidbit: "Springfield, Illinois wouldn't be a bad place to host a major political announcement."

So to sum it up, if there's no announcement Wednesday, it's probably not going to be Kaine. The announcement may come Thursday or Friday, in Chicago or Springfield (which is where Obama announced his own candidacy.) Or as usual this may all be wrong.

Al G suggests that Obama string this out as long as possible. But the longer it goes on, the more speculation and pressure, the more disappointment by people with a horse in the race, the higher the expectation, and the more media noise about how this is Obama's most important decision. Not to mention my blood pressure.

Someone speculates that the latest boomlets--Bayh, Kaine, Biden--were all trial balloons from the Obama campaign. Other suggest that everything so far has been disinformation, which may mean the choice is going to be a complete surprise. What's interesting about all this, if you can be objective, is that nobody knows enough about the Obama campaign insiders to know what to expect.

Update: The Tues. morning Washington Post says it may not be before Friday, because there is a schedule for Thursday now--a bus tour that begins in Virginia Wednesday and goes into North Carolina Thursday. (Unless of course it's Kaine, and he goes along.) Otherwise, their story rehashes the same names and the conventional opinions.

As for McSame, apparently his campaign has more or less announced that he will announce his choice in Ohio the day after Obama's acceptance speech, which is also McSlur's 72nd birthday.

VP Panic

Yeah, it's getting too close to decision time and I'm in a panic. First about McCain. Tom Ridge is quoted Sunday as saying that even a pro-choice guy (like him) would either become anti-choice like the nominee (McCain) or refuse the VP nomination. That's a bit scary. McCain looked like he went a long way in fixing his Evangelical problem Saturday, and if he thinks he did, he might pick Ridge. And that's probably the most potent pick he could make. It may put PA in play.

I still think he'll try to avoid offending either the GOPer base of anti-choice, pro-war zealots, or Independents who haven't yet figured out that he's no longer their kind of guy (if he ever was) by picking Pawlenty, a guy so unknown that (as someone said somewhere) he sounds mostly like an appetizer at the Olive Garden. And that would be good. He's not likely to pick Romney now, who might help him in a few key states, because Huckabee's vocal disapproval is a signal to the Rabid Right base that they should be upset by that. And McCain cannot afford to alienate Huckabee, who kept getting votes even after McCain was the presumptive.

But it's Obama who is up first, with just ten days before the VP is nominated officially at the convention. A post at Huffington indicates that Kaine is insufficiently pro-choice, which is something I didn't know, and don't even know if it's true, but if Dem women feel that way, he's a bad idea. He might be hard for Hillary to swallow, although if she talks him up, that might help with her voters.

That horseshit article in the NY Times Sunday I quoted is an obvious plant to get Obama to pick an "experience" candidate, and they mention Bayh--which is a sure tipoff that the article is more Clintonite propaganda. So I'm in a panic that he might actually do that. His choice could be announced as soon as tomorrow. I'm actually in fear of my email at the moment. (Although I just checked it.)

Well, I'll get a grip and hope it's Dodd, Biden or a nice surprise.

Two items (at least)of controversy came emerged from the Saddleback night, and both of them are about McCain (and neither of them is his $5 million a year definition of rich.) One is whether he knew the questions in advance, and there is some evidence he wasn't actually in that "cone of silence" at the church until Obama was halfway done. The McCain campaign is getting real indignant on this one, and actually I think the evidence against McCain is weak.

Not so his war story about the guard who made a cross in the dirt to silently signal his Christianity. The story of an imprisoned person being surprised by a guard silently making a cross in the dirt is in Solzhenitsyn's famous 1973 novel, The Gulag Archipelago. There are assertions that McCain is a big Solzhenitsyn fan, and that he did not tell this story until 1999, although he recounted his POW experiences ever since he returned in 1973. It may also be significant that the McCain campaign chose the other charge to get so exercised about.

Update: The cross in the sand story keeps getting more complicated. It may not be in The Gulag Archipelago at all, and one story in there about a guard wearing a cross on a chain while torturing prisoners makes a different point in Solzhenitsyn's book. It may have been attributed to S. by various rightward pols. Anyway, Andrew Sullivan seems about the only one interested in following this, as of Tuesday. He cites this TPM post that seems definitive so far.

CNN on Overseas Troops Donating to Obama by 6-1--and Why

No VP Saturday


All day and not a new VP rumor? What's wrong with you people! Oh, except that Joe Biden is off to Georgia (the one with Russians and no Atlanta), which (to Al G.) means that he's not in the running anymore, and (to TPM) that his chances are enhanced.


There is news however, about money. McCain previously announced his best month in July: $27 million. (Which according to his answer at the Saddleback Church forum Saturday, is the combined annual income of 5 and a half people.) The Obama campaign announced its July take was $51 million, with 65,000 new donors and a total number of contributors that passed the two million mark in August (McCain has about a quarter of that.) But the even bigger news is that for the first time since 2004, the Democratic National Committee raised more in a month than their Repub counterpart: $27.7 mil to $26 mil.

The race remains very competitive financially for at least the next month, as McCain has to spend his cash before the fed money kicks in. So if Obama can maintain a $50 mil a month pace, he'll have more--possibly a lot more--to spend in the critical months.


Obama and McCain were both interviewed by pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church, before an audience presumably of church members. Some felt they did equally well; others thought McCain did better, by playing to the audience and keeping his answers short and on (right wing) message, and by telling POW stories. In political terms, McCain may well have helped himself with the conservative base, but he stated unequivocally that he's anti-choice, and he defined a rich person as somebody making $5 million. (Obama said a person making $150,000 is doing very well.) Obama also helped himself with the Evangelical audience, especially by doing what some in the blogosphere criticized him for doing--he engaged in a conversation with Rick Warren rather than playing to the audience and giving campaign sound bites. By demonstrating humility and thoughtfulness, and especially by not only relating directly and with respect to Warren, but showing that Warren respects and likes him, he came across immediately as not scary, and by showing rapport with the pastor, the congregation is more likely to take another look at him and what he says about the issues that affect their lives.

I'm still a little amazed that people don't get that Obama is a different kind of candidate, and that's why he's been successful. He's organized and run a campaign that's politically astute but ahead of conventional thinking. He's not a conventional candidate. His thoughtful answers weren't a mistake.

Similarly, there is this horseshit in the New York Times. Without naming who most of these Democrats are, or who they supported (hint: Hillary), they quote their opinion that Obama has to be more specific, and stay away from talking about hope. Sure, turn him into Hillary, who lost. And by the way, when he does talk specifics (as he even did in the Berlin speech which they consider rhetoric, mostly because of the huge crowds), everyone ignores him. His energy plan is specific, but the media was too busy with cheap bullshit and these pols were too busy giving interviews about how he should be more specific.

If in the speech that more people are going to see than any other--his nomination acceptance speech in Denver-- Obama gives a Clintonian laundry list of programs, nobody--not the audience, not the voters, not the media or these pols--are going to be happy. We want to hear hope. We want to hear Yes We Can. We want to hear Change We Can Believe In. That's how Obama built his movement, and when it is fully energized, it will sweep him to victory.

So please, Barack, don't listen to these morons. Let Obama be Obama.

VP Friday

Today's mini-boomlet: Tim Kaine, who cancelled a town hall event Sunday night, while the Obama campaign scheduled an event in Richmond, VA for Thursday. Mini-mini for Wesley Clark, who appeared on CNN (but his son suggests he hasn't been vetted.) Armbinder mentions a focus group test in VA that didn't come out too good for Kaine, whatever that's worth.

My favorite is from the Swampland blog of Time, mostly because it contains a name I hadn't heard before, and somebody I know, an old college acquaintance, former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. Based mostly on announced speaking gigs at the Dem Convention for Biden, Bayh, Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, those remaining in the running are: Kaine, Dodd, Clark, Bloomberg (the Mayor of NYC I presume), Reed (who I thought took himself out of consideration), John Kerry, Sam Nunn, Chet Edwards (Pelosi's fave) and...John Podesta.

The convention speaker list means nothing, of course, and would be a fine way to deflect attention from the actual nominee. The only tea leaves I read in the convention is the roll call vote for Hillary Clinton--that pretty much tells you that she's getting that moment, but not another one, like the v.p. nod.

(Offically, the Obama campaign told the NY Times: “We reserve the right to change the schedule when we want and you shouldn’t make any assumptions,” she said. “Any person speaking on any given night could speak again as vice president.”)

Al G. at the Field discusses all this, and favors Kaine or Dodd. . Al puts more stock in the elimination potential of the speaker list than I do, but I tend to agree with him: out of this group of choices, Dodd or Kaine seem the best. Dodd for the "experience"/foreign policy and for championing civil liberties, and the white hair. Obama-Dodd is a good sounding, good looking ticket. The only thing the GOPers can bring up about Dodd that I know about is this question of an improper loan. Dodd has that New England thing going for him, the Kennedy thing, which can help with older voters.

Kaine is the "change" candidate, Catholic, speaks Spanish, VA Gov with midwestern accent, reinforces the Obama brand. I'm not sure he's an effective speaker, but he's good in interviews. He also can counter the Obama isn't American bullshit in an unusual way: their grandparents come from the same small town in Kansas.

The choice will tell us to some extent how worried the Obama campaign is about the "experience" mantra.

Al notes that two speaking slots haven't been announced: the person who places Obama's name in nomination, and the VP's. I'd expect the VP introducer won't be announced until the VP choice is, but unless Obama wants to go the traditional route and have his fellow Illinois Senator (Dick Durbin) nominate him, a really great choice would be Al Gore.

Barocky II---It's Great!

More VP

More microanalysis of announced speakers at the Dem Convention has put some doubt in the Biden boomlet today. However, a report somewhere suggested the Obama camp is looking favorably on the "experienced" option, so suddenly Tom Daschle is in the running.

On the "change" side, there's this tea-leaf reading saying it's Gov. Kaine.

But here's how the two arguments seem to be breaking down, with an additional wrinkle (according to...well, me.) The "go for experience" camp is providing names with lots of Washington baggage, but also people known mostly for experience in foreign affairs and national security. The "go for change" argument is for someone outside dysfunctional Washington, looking towards the future of the party, proven ability to work with Repubs and Independents and--here's the wrinkle--a governor with accomplishments on economic/energy issues.

That last wrinkle is not to be ignored. Because Obama's campaign has already moved its emphasis from Iraq and foreign affairs to energy/economics (as with the first Olympics ad) and economics/energy as part of that (second ad.) This is where Obama is strongest, and clearly it will be how he wins. He has to pin a bad economy on Bush and McBush, and add healthcare to the argument along with energy. From now to the election.

So what does Obama do--does he pick an "experience" foreign policy/national security old white guy VP to mollify those with doubts, so he is free to make the economics case himself? Or does he pick a "change" young or female governor who can make both the change politics and the economic/energy/health care case?

Obama is likely to announce his choice, they say, on Monday or Tuesday. Then and probably only then will we know. But I think the argument for the "change" VP candidate is strong, and Tim Kaine and Kathleen Sibelius are strong possibilities. Sibelius has the extra advantage of being from the (mid)west, where Dem gains are going to be made this year and for the forseeable future, and she has a compelling record, especially in getting GOPers on her side. Kaine is smart, articulate, much more compelling in action than in still photos, and though he is gov of an eastern/southern state, with a mixed record, it is Virginia, where Obama has a good chance to win (probably even without Kaine on the ticket, though.)

I am sympathetic to the "experience" option, and if there was a candidate identified that was convincing, I'd be happier. My instinct says not to get a Senator, and those are the only names mentioned. Bayh would be the worst choice of those mentioned a lot, and I think it would be a mistake.

Meanwhile, don't miss the Baracky II viral video above.

McCainonomics

VP Buzz

Today's Dem VP buzz is about Joe Biden, a perennial favorite at MSNBC, at least. But the one part of the buzz today that sounded like it could have substance is that Biden isn't saying anything. Biden not saying anything! Something is afoot!

The pluses with Biden are name recognition, an exciting personality, foreign policy experience, white hair. Obama-Biden is a good sounding ticket.

The minuses are potentially significant, though. Depending on the vetting, Biden's past associations with lobbyists, particularly for banks etc. (he's from Delaware, after all, the big bank HQ tax haven) could substantially undercut one of the Obama campaign's best arguments against McCain--Mc's lobbyist connections. Biden is old politics, Washington, and that also undercuts the new politics of Obama.

Another minus: the Senate. Even though Del has a dem gov, so the seat won't be lost in the short term, it's less certain long term. And besides, Biden's seniority and leadership in the Senate would be missed. The Dems are going to lose Obama and Leiberman. Depending on electoral outcomes, that can shave the majority President Obama will need.

Biden is East Coast as well as Washington. My instincts still tell me that Obama is looking to the Midwest or West, and he's better off with a Governor. But I'm of course not privvy to the vetting, or to internal polls which might indicate whether the experience and foreign policy arguments for McCain are significant problems. Even so, how much can a VP help? Cheney probably helped Shrub, but with people who wanted to vote for Shrub and were reassured by what appeared to be a rep of the GOPer foreign policy establishment. Is there a significant bloc of voters with similiar feelings about Obama? Clinton voters perhaps? Again, I can't gauge the reality of that.

Meanwhile, Huffpost has several posts about progressive pushback on the Evan Bayh boomlet, especially on his support for the Iraq War. Again, I say it ain't gonna happen.

President Bush at the Olympics, apparently in
his own mirror universe. Or is that a distress
signal?

Georgia Out of His Mind

The warfare in Georgia is a fast-moving story at the moment, but one part of it struck me immediately: President Bush condemning Russia for invading a sovereign country.

As well he should, but is anyone in Russia doing anything but laugh? Or anywhere else for that matter. Bush invaded a sovereign country, and has occupied it for years, and one of the motives--as apparently in Georgia--was oil. But with him as President, America's outrage is pathetic.

I heard someone on Charlie Rose say that this needs to bring western allies together. But do those allies trust Bush, after all the bullying he did over Iraq? With the support, if I remember correctly, of his pal Putin and Russia?

It may well be a dangerous moment, made more dangerous by this lame duck loser who did his best to screw America's future. We're only beginning to pay.

Celebrity McCain