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

How Lucky We Are (with updates)

Among the reasons I have increasing confidence in Barack Obama is that he seems to be lucky. FDR was lucky. Until the obvious moment he wasn't, JFK was lucky. Obama is very intelligent, in all kinds of ways: on policy, on vision, on strategy, and he's acute about himself--he's got more of an introspective side than most pols. He's a good manager with a very good eye for talent, and his team continues to perform very well. But he's also been lucky, which may be yet another way of saying, this is our moment, this is our time.

But at least a couple of events during the last few days have shown how lucky the Democrats are that he's their nominee. What if it had been John Edwards, and all this sordid news broke just as the convention was about to start? What if it had been Hillary Clinton, who could not run her own campaign, let alone the country?

That's the conclusion of Joshua Green in his article in the Atlantic about what went wrong with the Clinton campaign: " Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence—on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency."

Green's article is informed by hundreds of emails and memos donated by still bitter Clinton staffers. You might notice that other still-bitter Clinton acolytes are still trying to force Obama into ceding his campaign to her, if not abdicating before it's too late. Which suggests that it's not just her non-management style, but her judgment of people she depends on. And sure enough, one of her faves, Howard the Wolf's Son, the wolfman of press relations, put out his spin on the Edwards awfulness, by asserting that if this had been revealed last year, before the Iowa caucus, Hillary would have gotten enough Edwards' votes to win, and hence would have won the nomination. Nobody is actually buying this, because the numbers don't support it, but that's the quality of advice Clinton got. (Even Chuck Schumer gives lousy advice.) And also where the loyalties of these folks still lie (other than to themselves.)

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is following the same kind of strategy that won them the nomination: organizing and targeting messages at the local and state levels, looking to win electoral votes. This piece at Five Thirty Eight is about part of that strategy. Update: And this great idea: give cell phones to the people standing in line for Obama's acceptance speech, with lists of voters they can call! It's brilliant!

As for the broader strokes, maybe all Obama needs is a tie. He's got the more uplifting ad on the Olympics, while McCain's is deadly, mostly because it is one outright lie after another. Even the hot air networks have noted this, but if you're willing to engage in Big Lie politics, you're going to turn some people who aren't paying much attention, and are looking for a reason not to vote for the new/black/young/guy.

But McCain has to win some other blocs of voters besides racists, neocons and the clueless. But he's not doing it. As noted before, he's losing Latinos, Jewish voters, etc. He no longer has a lock on Evangelicals, who are tepid at best about him, and some of whom are voting for Obama--maybe as many as 40%. Update: Obama is actually ahead among Christians by 9 points, according to this poll, and McCain has only a slight lead among Evangelicals.

McCain's not even so popular with military veterans. Meanwhile, he's got to fend off charges about his campaign financing, Big Oil contributions and lobbying.

The next bit of campaign news is likely to be Obama's choice for VP. You may have heard that the Obama campaign is offering to email its supporters immediately once that decision is made. I'll be on that list, so if I'm anywhere near a computer, the news will be here when it breaks.

Fact Check

Get To Work! MoveOn's Latest

Break Time

So basically what happened the past week or so since Obama came back from overseas was this: the Obama campaign began to flesh out domestic policy, first on the economy and then on energy. Obama met with experts on the economy, made speeches, and set out his energy plan. The McCain campaign, seeing the schedule or intuiting it or just getting lucky, went on the attack while Obama was trying to stay positive, so he could answer the question of exactly what his domestic programs are, which the pundits used to say he needed to do, but when he did, they paid absolutely no attention.

So McShame launched one scurrilous and eventually racist attack after another, and that got all the hot air blowing. This week Obama went on the counter- attack, while still talking substance, and hit McCain for his triviality and lies, while the Obama ads hit hard at McCain as McBush. That will probably continue the rest of this week, until Obama goes on vacation Friday for a week. McCain has tried to return to the positive this week, and his pronouncements and appearances suggest that the best thing Obama can do right now is leave the stage to him, because what Obama needs is for people to pay more attention to McCain, and what an utter embarrassment he is.

I'm hoping to take a vacation from the politics, too, although I hope to continue posting at Dreaming Up Daily on the substance of the Obama energy plan, which is a really significant change of direction for this country, and a very necessary one.

But there is this VP thing going on, so who knows. The latest on that: Obama did not announce Bayh as his choice today, so he won't announce anything until after his break, and one story indicated that Hillary was back on the short list. Then Hillary announces that she's trying to figure out how to let her supporters have their say at the convention, like by placing her name in nomination after all. So that's the shortest stay on the short list in history. Obama would no more pick her than Joe Lieberman. Despite the joint statement just issued by Obama and Hillary saying they are working on the convention thing together.

There is this interesting piece about John Kerry as Obama's best surrogate, and Bob Shrum--not everybody's favorite consultant--saying that if Kerry hadn't run for the big chair in 04, he'd be hands down favorite for VP this year. And maybe...

As for McBush, the latest fave has been Pawlenty again, and then today Pawlenty goes and compliments Obama on running a positive campaign, and suggest GOPers do the same. So unless McCain is planning on switching the usual roles--having his VP be positive while he as the prez candidate becomes the attack dog--Pawlenty is a goner as well. Although to be fair at this same appearance, Pawletty showed himself to be just as capable as McCain at irrelevant negativity.

By the way, every major poll shows Obama holding his lead, and the race essentially unchanged since June. That's actually pretty good news for Obama, in that the GOPers haven't stuck on image on him before the convention, as they did on Kerry. People will start to pay more active attention with the VP selections and the conventions. There will be a period in early September that the polls will go nuts a few times, before settling down to say something useful. Then come the debates, and there will be 3 presidential ones, two sit downs and a town hall, with Jim Leher, Bob Sheiffer and Tom Brokaw moderating--a decent chance at substance. If Obama is leading in October, his superior ground game and the enthusiasm of his young supporters should do the rest. Game, set, match. Pass the lemonade.

Maverick Reality Check

The Oil Company Candidate

Who's Presumtuous Now?

First he couldn't win the votes of women. He's winning their votes handily. Then he had a Latino problem. He's winning by growing margins among Latinos in every poll. And a Jewish problem. He's running away with the Jewish vote. So then there was this problem with "hard-working Americans"--white ones anyway.

So today the Washington Post writes about their latest poll, in which Barack Obama leads John McCain among low-wage workers by a 2 to 1 margin. His support among African Americans is overwhelming--but so is his support among Latinos.

And guess what? He leads among white low-wage workers--by ten points.

So it has to be just because he's a Democrat, or because they like his programs and they're willing to overlook his "presumptuousness" and his arugula-eating, way too skinny self.

Because the pundits all tell us that they're suspicious of him, they don't think he is one of us/them. So that's it, right?

The Post:

"The group, which accounts for nearly a quarter of U.S. adults, gives the Democrat the nod both as the more empathetic candidate and as the one who more closely shares their values."

Huh? How can that be? They support him because he's the more empathetic candidate who SHARES THEIR VALUES?

Quick--get Chris Matthews and his August sub some smelling salts. Make sure Dana Milbanks is on his meds. And don't let the McCain smear machine hear about this!

I wouldn't expect much crow consumption, though. More along the lines of this marvellously dry observation in the Post story:

"Obama's standing with the white workers runs counter to an impression, dating from the primary season, that he struggles to attract support from that group. "

YA THINK?

McCain thought he had a real chance with Latinos, but he's been sadly mistaken. And now...McCain advisers have said for months that they think the Republican can win a significant share of those voters because of Obama's performance in the spring. The survey suggests it will be difficult, but not impossible, for McCain to increase his appeal."

Maybe he'd like to try some arugula?

Rumors and Update

The first new name with the smell of credibility surfaces today: McCain is reportedly considering a relatively unknown congressman, Eric Kantor for VP. He is a member of the GOPer House leadership though, plus he's young, conservative, Jewish and from Virginia. At first glance, he looks like the best of the choices McCain's reportedly been considering. His obscurity may even be an asset: McCain needs a fresh face, because his certainly isn't. Lots of pluses, no apparent drawbacks, which is more than can be said for the other names generally believed to be on McSame's list. As a conservative ideologue, he won't have trouble filling the attack dog role in a campaign that seems to be going all negative, all the time.

Update: Here's a more reliable link to the story on this in the LA Times.

Meanwhile, an incomplete schedule which has Obama in South Bend, Indiana for almost 24 hours is suggesting to some folks that he's about to announce Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana as his VP choice. Some have speculated Obama might name his choice before his vacation to Hawaii during the Olympics, others figure he won't. I don't buy Bayh myself, but you knew that.

If McCain does pick Kantor, I think that puts more pressure on Obama to come up with an equally creative choice, and a strong one.

It's the 1st of August--Do You Know Where Your Candidate Is?

It's been a week of relentless attack by McCain and the GOPer chorus, as well as some members of the hot air media, and it ends with the Gallup tracking poll tied. So these are anxious times for Obama?

First of all, a video message that fellow contributors received today from the Obama campaign says that these attacks helped generate some 200,000 campaign contributions this week, and 100,000 yesterday alone, the last day of the month (on the last day of June, the Obama campaign took in almost as much as the McCain campaign did all month, perhaps in honor of my birthday, or maybe not.) A third of these contributors were new. Also during the month, Obama field offices opened all over the place, and after these attacks, volunteers were "pouring in."

As for the polls, the head-to-head national polls using whatever method still show Obama ahead, but the states are where the electoral votes are, and they look very good for Obama. Reviewing the most recent ones, FiveThirtyEight concluded: This is generally a pretty good set of polling for Barack Obama. Abstract these numbers for a moment. If you had told a Democrat a year ago that, on the last day of July, their candidate would be ahead in Ohio and Florida, well ahead in Pennsylvania , way ahead in California, tied in Montana, within single digits in a couple of states that went really red in 2000 and 2004, they'd be pretty thrilled with that set of polling."

Recall for a moment that John Kerry came with a few electoral votes of being elected President in 2004. The Gallup demographic data shows that Obama is scoring higher than Kerry in every demographic group, except that he's a few points behind in Democrats as a whole--he's winning them 80%-11%. Obama is now showing great strength in virtually every poll among Latinos--and that could be the ball game right there.

Speaking of the final score, Kos posted his monthly analysis, based on pollster.com aggregates of the polls of the month, and he calculates that Obama is winning 336 electoral votes to McCains 202. His June analysis showed Obama ahead 317 to 221. So Obama gained ground in July. The Obamagic number is 270.

Of course the race is still changing, but remember again: John Kerry was only a few electoral votes short--and factor this from Kos: Obama is winning all the Kerry states, most of them with bigger margins than Kerry won them. So Obama has a base of 210 safe votes. McCain has all of 72.

And we haven't had the conventions, we haven't had the debates, and the real ground game campaign is a month away from really beginning (although off the radar, the Obama army is registered voters all over the place.)

It's no time for complacency. But it's certainly no time for panic.

Convention news: Hillary Clinton will be the keynote speaker on Tuesday of convention week, and her name will not be entered in nomination.

Obama Responds

Polls, Veeps and Smears (with Updates)

Veeps first. I've just watched Tim Kaine being interviewed by Charlie Rose for 50 minutes, and I'm sold. I'd be very comfortable with him as Obama's VP. I think he'd add a lot to the dialogue, he's very positive, his vocabulary can connect with everybody--especially those much discussed white working men--he has a good grasp of Obama's vision and shares it, and he has a real presence in motion (as opposed to the still image.) He's fresh and refreshing, he talks sense and that's motivating. I think in his own quieter way he can bring some excitement to the ticket.

He's not likely to be the cliche of the attack dog VP, but the way McCain is going, what's there to attack? By attacking Obama so much so early--a smart strategy in some ways, for as Craig Crawford explained it Wednesday on Countdown, the McCain people want to burst the Obama balloon before they lose hold of it and it floats up, up and away--McCain is giving the Obama campaign ample opportunity to learn what works in defense. And they're starting to get good at it. Obama himself is calling McCain out, challenging him to articulate his positive vision---if he has one. Meanwhile, refutation of McCain lies seems to be working--but more on that in a minute.

As all this pertains to the VP, Obama doesn't need an attack dog, but maybe somebody like Kaine who can defend with a genial half smile and that great flat midwestern accent (for this Governor of Virginia is from Kansas City.) I don't much like the sound of Obama-Kaine, for several reasons (confusion with "McCain," the sound of it as one word and various associations) but if the campaign avoids using it as much as possible, looks to me like Kaine is a plus.

But for all the speculation, a NY Times piece indicates that the selection process is chugging along but not at the decision stage, and may not be for a few weeks. Their reporting shows that Obama hasn't yet become directly involved. Update: Chris C. of the WAPost agrees, saying that the list of names under consideration is still longer than generally believed.

On the GOPer front, I saw a fairly startling quote from Mitt Romney at the Political Wire, but no one else seems to have picked it up or read it the way I did--as a disavowal of interest in being McCain's VP. Meanwhile the debate goes on as to whether he'd be a plus or minus to McCain.

Which brings us to smears and lies. I'm trying to focus politics at this blog, but when this election has such a major impact on the future, I revert to posting about this stuff at Dreaming Up Daily, so there are pertinent posts about the latest round of McCain lies and negative ads here and here and here. What's been interesting about the lying doesn't care about the troops ad--which was directed at McCain's base: the media, since it has been played much more on the hot air networks for free than as a paid ad--is that while the bloviators, especially on cable, started by treating it as a false "controversy" the way they did the Swift Boat Liars in 2004, there was a backlash in the past couple of days thoroughly exposing the lies.

Partly that's because the facts were known to reporters traveling with Obama, and some of them took umbrage (although some at first simply allowed the lies and talked about how the Obama campaign should have handled the situation.) But part of the reason probably is that Obama enthusiasts aren't sitting still for it, whether on the blogosphere or in direct contact with networks and newspapers. Witness Wednesday's idiocy, when a Washington Post reporter (with a reputation for GOPer sympathies) took an Obama quote out of context to make it sound directly opposite to Obama's meaning. That inspired this call to let the Post know about it, and we'll see if that's also effective.

Update: Here is the revealing story of the campaign so far--David Kiley's column in Business Week (hat tip to Political Wire.) Kiley begins with a summary of the ad technique used by Faux News Hannity and political adsters of repeating a lie relentlessly until it becomes real in the political dialogue. He then turns to McCain. "I've written good things about McCain's ads in the past, and I expect I will again if they ever return to a level of at least being for grown-ups." But after reaffirming that the charges in the McCain ad on Obama not going to visit wounded soldiers in Germany were blatant lies, he reveals the other ad that the McCain people were preparing.

Recall that Obama ultimately decided not to visit that hospital after the Pentagon questioned whether bringing his military advisor would constitute a partisan campaign stop. Obama didn't want the visit to be politicized, and decided that it now would be, so rather than subject the troops and the hospitals to becoming political fodder, he didn't go.

Here then is what Kiley reveals: What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie. End o update.

Is this this corporate media trying to fix the election, the result of a comfort level with the old buddy McCain over the new Obama and his new political team, or the frantic attempt to inject drama into an election that may be one-sided already? Well, it could be the first, but the second and third are sufficient. In any case, the controversy is more often about Obama than McCain. Tuesday's was: Sure Obama is leading in the polls and he has been for weeks (the recent Gallup poll showing McCain ahead has been pretty much discredited as using a lunatic likely voter model), but why can't Obama break 50%? Much bloviating on that matter, and then the CNN poll came out Thursday: Obama 51%, McCain 44%.

Today's blather was about Obama being presumptuous and arrogant (though that same poll showed the voters aren't buying it.) And supporting that was the misquote of something Obama has often said, that the campaign is not about him, he's just the symbol of the change America wants.

Some attention is being paid to McCain going relentlessly negative--even some GOPers aren't too pleased about it. But more apropos is Mark Green's focus in his piece titled "McCain's 1968 Heroism Can't Excuse His 2008 McCarthyism" : Pundits on the talks shows say that the '08 election is all about Barack Obama: Can he pass the commander-in-chief test and avoid gaffes and reassure white voters? The burden is always put on him. But another question is whether John McCain can pass the character test. So far, he's failing.

It's time that McCain's acolytes and the mainstream media stopped assuming that his extraordinary military service nearly 40 years ago gives him immunity to questions about being President today in a different century...Start with the truth that a maverick has morphed into a McCarthy -- and that the honorable McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the angry McCain of 2008.

Or wasn't eight years of a Liar-in-Chief enough?

Move On for Obama

Veep Creep

Veep news keeps creeping closer. The Washington Post seems to feel Tim Kaine is near the top of Obama's list, if not already selected. Unless the vetters know something I don't, I still like Kathleen Sibelius over Kaine. All his positives plus a proven ability to work with Republicans and Independents, which Kaine apparently doesn't have so much. A bit more experience as a governor, too. Only negative I see: he might help in Virginia, whereas she may not be able to help much in Kansas. But I still like her: she says change, they look good together, she'll help with women independents and Republican women as well as women Democrats. And just as the B. Clinton-Gore ticket was two young guys from the South, Obama-Sebelius is two fresh faces from the Midwest. Look West, Democrats. I have my doubts that Kaine would make the difference in Virginia anyway.

People are arguing whether McCain really needs Romney, or Romney will kill his chances, but the talk definitely is Romney.

Obama speaking, at least in the imagination of
a pre-schooler. See story below.

The Trip (with Updates)

The substantive evaluations of Obama's overseas week, such as they are, are starting to come in. Frank Rich writes about "How Obama Became Acting President" in the Sunday NY Times. (I've posted some excerpts at Dreaming Up Daily.) Mark Green writes of the week as 7 Days That Ended A War and a Candidacy, meaning McBush's.

So far the polls show a modest bounce, but since their tracking poll showed more movement for Obama late in the week, Gallup expects more to show up next week. Obama now has a 7 point lead in that poll, matching his largest margin. Update: Later Sunday, Gallup announced Obama's lead was 9 points, his largest. Obama is at 49 (just shy of the magic 50%) with McCain at 40 (also an important number--below 40 is trouble.) A week ago it was 45-42. Which makes the week's bounce from 6 to 9 points in the polls so far. Another new poll puts Obama over 50% (51%) and McCain below 40% (39%.)These polls don't mean a lot separately or for very long, but they're not meaningless either. If a candidate is over 50% and the opponent under 40% for very long, pros consider this a tipping point indicator.

But the evidence in other ways?...Check out this Kos diary in which a young parent observes pre-school kids dramatizing Obama speaking (the photo above.) Jon Stewart showed the American flags waving in Berlin and thought there was a malfunction--they weren't burning. Rich makes the same point: some children have never seen pictures of American flags flying in Europe unless they were burning. Until Obama spoke in Berlin. (Apparently he could have drawn just as big a crowd in Paris and perhaps London as well.)

Speaking of flags, a possible red one for some folks (like me, in fact) was Obama's talk about moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Are we trading one war for another? But in this interview, Obama says that goals in Afghanistan should be modest, and military action must be joined with diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. The entire interview is pretty interesting. Imagine there's a President who is thoughtful and speaks in complete sentences.

Speaking of imagining, one reporter heard a reference in Obama's Berlin speech that I missed (I only caught JFK, Reagan, Lincoln and FDR): John Lennon.

I read one article today about the poor press relations of the Obama campaign. Then there's this piece, that says they became pretty good after the beginning of the trip. I certainly saw the difference between (angry) night and (sunny) day in Andrea Mitchell's demeanor: angry when no reporters were in Iraq, and absolutely bubbling when she reported Obama's remarks to reporters on the plane to Berlin.

The McCain campaign is currently trying (in its usual inept fashion) to demonize Obama for not visiting wounded troops in Germany, which apparently was a problem with the military over campaign staff. The McCains cut a quick commercial on the subject, with Obama shooting that 3-pointer as evidence he was too busy to visit the troops, except of course it's obvious that he is visiting the troops in that very picture. Update: the two Senators who accompanied Obama on the congressional part of the trip to Iraq, Afghanistan etc.,--Democrat Jack Reed and Republican Chuck Hagel-- defended him against this charge and denounced the ad on Face the Nation Sunday, saying also that they all visited wounded troops in the battle zone.

The dirty little secrets the McCainites don't want revealed is that Obama has taken in more donations from servicepeople than McCain has, and in a recent poll taken within the military showed more than 54% favored Obama's Iraq policy, to nearly 39% favoring McCain's.

Most of the dramatics on this trip were visible to the cameras, with at least this exception: the King of Jordan personally driving Obama to the airport, bringing his sporty Mercedes to a screeching halt in front of the waiting Secret Service.

The Frank Rich column lists McCain's gaffes while Obama was away, and some of the visuals: Obama in the helicopter over Iraq with General Petreus; McCain in a golf cart with Pappy Bush. Obama in the Middle East; McCain in the cheese aisle of a supermarket (sharp-eyed Jon Stewart noted the "Dole" packages in the picture), his rambling attempt to redefine the Surge being interupted by the supermarket loudspeaker; Obama speaking at Magic Hour before a quarter of a million people in Berlin; McCain buying cream puffs in a lonely German restaurant, and talking to a fake customer (planted by the local GOPers) while bumping a load of apples onto the floor in yet another supermarket.

McCain announced an event on an offshore oil ring in Louisiana (although as Rich says, everybody with a TV knew that a hurricane was approaching), then quickly cancelled it. Even without the wind, there was the problem of the Mississippi being closed at New Orleans because of an oil spill. (However, polls showing more support for drilling suggest the GOPers will try to ride this issue.)

With good sense, Obama suggests the campaign will remain close because, although people want change, they don't know him that well. But there's also talk that it really isn't close; the hot air networks have to make it sound close, or they'd have nothing to talk about.

The next drama is the VP choice. For McCain, it's still likely to be Romney, with Pawlenty seemingly the only other one in the running. For Obama, much more complicated. Jack Reed took himself out of contention, John Edwards currently has a tabloid problem that probably isn't anything but..., and Hillary honcho Terry McAuliffe (man I thought I'd never have to hear from him again) is promoting Gov. Kaine of Virginia, which may be the kiss of death for that guy. And in the midst of this the name of an obscure Republican cabinet member surfaced. Please don't blow this, Barack! But one thing this overseas trip has probably done is obviate any need for foreign policy backup in a VP. The election is going to be won or lost now on the economy and energy. My instincts say to either go with one of the other presidential candidates (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd) for stature or go for the change poster with Kathleen Sibelius.

The Speech

At Dreaming Up Daily and elsewhere, I posted my first response to Obama's speech in Berlin (video and transcript here) and to the first round of media reaction, plus the sections of the speech I found most significant. Here are a few further reflections, partly inspired by the dearth of serious analysis, at least that I've heard.

This was a major speech by the candidate who could very well be the next U.S. President, and nobody seemed all that interested in what he said--when it was merely his coherent vision for U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to European allies, but well beyond that. But either the McCain complaining finally paid off, or the news media isn't interested in detailed reporting or analysis, or both.

First, the most obvious: Obama presented himself to Europe as the anti-Bush, and at some risk. He's going to be hammered by the rabid right simply for the line very early in the speech in which he says he is speaking as a U.S. citizen, and a citizen of the world.

He referred to--but did not dwell on--ending the war in Iraq. The crowd probably would have liked more of this, but Obama did not criticise a sitting President while overseas. (His later reference to American imperfections apparently sounded to rabid rightists like airing dirty laundry, but in context it was welcome humility.) But he struck all the issue notes Europeans needed to hear: nuclear proliferation, climate crisis, Darfur, torture, etc. Yet he also called for more NATO involvement in Afghanistan, not a popular position in Germany.

But most of all, he expressed his view that the U.S. must be ready to cooperate with its allies again, and to become a world citizen again. This is not only what Europeans wanted to hear, it is what Independents in America want to hear.
Another point on content: Obama presented a rational framework for attaining certain foreign policy goals. For example, he coupled military action in Afghanistan with humanitarian aid and development aid. He spoke out against Iran's nuclear ambitions, but he negated the current hypocrisy of U.S. policy by calling for an end to nuclear weapons everywhere, including the U.S.

Now a few thoughts on form. Obama used the Berlin airlift to create a structure in several ways. As a story about U.S. and German cooperation so soon after World War II, it was about strengthening that old alliance. But it was also about widening the cooperation it started, as exemplified by the European Union. Widening further, it is about creating more cooperation globally, to address global problems--and Obama showed that most problems we face are inevitably global:

"As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya."

As a story about the U.S. and West Berlin standing firm against the blockade by the Soviet Union, it was about allies standing together against other enemies, which also includes working together on tough problems like nuclear proliferation, unfair trade, the Climate Crisis and world poverty--which appear at least as hopeless.

As a story about cooperation that overcame barriers, it led naturally into the sub-theme of tearing down walls of prejudice. In terms of diplomacy, Obama's willingness to talk to everyone was demonstrated on this trip to be his ability to talk to everyone, and this speech reinforces that image.

As a story about the U.S. dropping food, not bombs, it was about the power of peaceful means. And as a story about how this U.S. effort won praise and trust from Europe and elsewhere in the world, it is a story about how the U.S. can regain its international reputation, which Obama showed was in other ways commensurate with characteristic American ideals.

In its rhetoric, it was of a piece with other Obama speeches. But it also recognized the two most famous American speeches in Berlin: given by John Kennedy and Reagan.

From JFK, Obama took the repeated refrains featuring the name of the city. JFK said several sentences in a row, "let them come to Berlin." Obama said "Look at Berlin" several times in a row. And instead of the famous Eich bein ein Berliner of JFK, Obama said simply,..."all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin."

Reagan's only famous line was, "Tear down this wall!" Obama made tearing down walls a repeated refrain of his speech. Then there was this fascinating section:

"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

So there is Reagan and tearing down walls, but also an echo of Lincoln and "A house divided against itself cannot stand." In fact, Obama uses "stand together," and "cannot stand" in interesting ways several times.

There's another hint of Lincoln--of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln said: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here."

Obama said: "They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here. Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment."

As for the themes and rhetoric familiar from Obama speeches, they gained new meanings in this particular context. He spoke about generational change and seizing opportunity (another JFK theme) with his signature refrain of "This is our moment. This is our time."

He used his biography to link hope in the context of individuals hoping for a better life, and the freedom to follow individual dreams and destinies, and the opportunity to make those dreams a reality, but carried these ideas through on a global rather than national scale. This is a point about America's role in the world--America as the symbol of hope, freedom and opportunity--but also shows that Obama's vision for America and his vision for the world are coherent, and both center on these key qualities necessary at the level of individuals. This is where issues connect with people (and here, there's a bit of a reference to FDR's Four Freedoms):

"What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please. These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart."

Veeping

After Barack rocked Iraq, McCain must be weeping. So the rumor now that he'll soon be veeping--announcing his v.p. this week, to blunt further media dominance by Obama's overseas trip.

It's probably a bad idea, so I say, why be even more inconsistent, John? Go for it. He's got no good choices, but if McCain has a synapse still firing, he'll pick Mitt Romney, because if McCain doesn't win Michigan or PA, he doesn't have a prayer. Romney will piss off some rabid right Evangelicals because he's Mormon, but McCain's better alternative-- Tom Ridge, who might help him in PA--will REALLY piss off even more rabid rightists, because he's pro-choice.

He could then go for somebody neutral, like Pawlenty of Minnesota. I find a vp debate between Pawlenty and Evan Bayh hard to imagine--they are both so colorless that it will be like there's nobody on the stage. Now the gossip is about McCain visiting Gov. Jindal of Louisiana, the 37 year old very weird exorcist (literally, he performs exorcisms.) I can't wait to see that photo of them at the convention. That will be the biggest boost for Obama since Alan Keyes ran against him for the Senate in Illinois.

Barack's vp is another problem. I am appalled by the people the media are naming. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island is their latest favorite, and I'm sure he's a great guy, but he and Barack don't make a picture either. I admit the hot air networks have me doubting myself, but I don't see Barack making that kind of choice. The last time he addressed his criteria, he mentioned only somebody who shared his vision. So I see my usual suspects, especially Sebelius, and also, increasingly, I see John Edwards. Maybe Chris Dodd, and unless Joe Biden is playing possum, I still believe he's not interested. I don't see Bayh. I don't like the sound of Obama-Bayh. I can hear the GOPer chant already: "Obama-Bayh-bye."

But what do I know? Just riffing on veeping. Later, man.