June 04, 2008

6/4: A Tale Of Three Speeches

Liberal bloggers experienced some conflicting emotions last night. On the one hand, they celebrated Barack Obama's historic triumph, which several bloggers described as the greatest upset in the history of American presidential politics. The netroots were also thrilled by Obama's victory speech and claimed that it made John McCain's speech look awful in comparison. On the other hand, liberal bloggers were angered by Hillary Clinton's defiant speech, in which she refused to acknowledge Obama's victory, continued to talk about her electability, and "repeat[ed] her bogus popular vote argument". Markos Moulitsas fumed: "She hasn't said one nice thing about Obama. It's all about her. Period. There is nothing else that matters." Many liberal bloggers viewed Clinton's speech as further evidence that she shouldn't be Obama's running mate -- especially now that the RNC has begun using Clinton's words against Obama. BarbinMD summarizes the views of many in the netroots (as well as Nancy Pelosi) when she writes, "If Hillary Clinton was named as Barack Obama's running mate, we would be facing six months of this. Clinton burned her bridges when she decided to attack a Democrat while praising the man who is running for George Bush's third term."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers agree with their liberal counterparts that McCain's speech was weak. However, they're arguing that Obama has suffered irreparable damage from the protracted Dem primary and will have a tough time beating McCain.

DEM FIELD: Yes He Did!

Liberal bloggers are celebrating Obama's victory and emphasizing its historic nature:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "Put aside delegates, Bylaw Committees, talking points, pundits, and polls. Put all of that aside and tell me that this morning, right now, this isn't a nation to be proud of. Tell me that this doesn't make you feel like anything is possible in the greatest country on earth. Tell me that this ripple of hope won't capture the imagination of people who still look to the United States as a beacon. Go ahead. I dare you."
• Daily Kos' DarkSyde: "We will remember this evening for the rest of our lives. [...] Where were you when Barack Obama won the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States?"
• Atrios: "It was at the first Yearly Kos in Las Vegas that a prominent Dem staffer told me, 'Obama's running.' I don't think I quite believed it at the time, though I understood it would be game changing to some degree if true. I think that due to the extended primary season we've lost sight to some extent just how game changing this is. Being at an Obama party with a substantial African-American presence, it really sunk in how much this is a 'holy shit' moment. Whatever happens next, it is an historic moment."

DEM FIELD II: See? This Is Why She Can't Be His Running Mate

Liberal bloggers are upset -- but not surprised -- that the RNC has already begun using Clinton's words against Obama:

"Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama's qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.

'Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002,' Clinton says in the one-minute video [...] 'I think it is imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. And I believe I have done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that. And you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.'"

• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "If Hillary Clinton was named as Barack Obama's running mate, we would be facing six months of this. [...] Clinton burned her bridges when she decided to attack a Democrat while praising the man who is running for George Bush's third term."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Thanks, Hillary! But then again, she doesn't care. This is all about her."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Oh joy. The RNC will go to any length to exploit what they consider a 'dems divided' storyline in the next couple days. And they're wasting no time, circulating a video of Clinton questioning Obama's national security credentials. [...] This is just one of the reasons why this phase of uncertainty needs closure very, very soon."

DEM FIELD III: Hillary For VP? Hill No!

Many of Obama's online supporters are strongly opposed to an Obama-Clinton ticket:

• Moulitsas: "Okay, so Clinton is now in the bargaining phase of grief, apparently. She won't drop out until she can try to weasel her way onto the ticket. Here's the bottom line -- if Obama takes Clinton, it would be a sign of weakness as Clinton -- holding few cards -- is apparently set on sabotaging him if she can't get what she want."
• Cole: "So the night Obama wins the nomination, the entire media coverage is focussed on Clinton's brazen and successful attempt to hijack the limelight with story of her struggle and her desire to be VP. Is there really anyone who can not figure out that five months of her attempting to upstage Obama followed by perhaps 8 years of the same would be a disaster? Really? Anyone?"
• Moulitsas agrees with Cole: "Funny how Obama's victory night is turning into a non-stop discussion about Hillary Clinton. And that's one reason why Obama can't put her on his ticket -- the Clintons overshadow anything around them."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "I hope at this point that Obama has the strength to turn her down -- gently. He should bring in former rivals into his cabinet and should offer Clinton a cabinet post, on the [Abraham] Lincoln model. But to have endured the kind of campaign the Clintons ran and concede to her wishes now would be an act of weakness that the Clintons would exploit were he to become president. Obama needs to regain the momentum and clarity of his early insurrection. He would not do that by adding Clinton to his ticket."
• Mark Kleiman: "Note that Obama's text, inclulding the gracious shout-out to Clinton, was on the Web an hour before she spoke. He offered an olive branch, and she rudely slapped it aside. That should finally answer the question whether she would make a good running-mate."

CLINTON SPEECH: So Much For Unity

Liberal bloggers are angry that Clinton gave such a defiant speech and refused to acknowledge Obama's victory:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "I probably shouldn't write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I've found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different. I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who've been enabling her behavior, I'd say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain's most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton's payroll."
• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn't concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he's won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama's campaign on its 'achievements,' but barely musters a single good word about him. I don't know what the fallout will be, but at minimum, I'd say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama."
• Ezra Klein: "Clinton's speech was a curious spectacle. It's not merely that she didn't concede, but that she didn't even mention that anything had changed. She congratulated Obama on his campaign, but not on his win, or even his likely win. Instead, she continued to talk about her electability, her desire to 'count every vote' (every vote, save for a few stragglers in South Dakota, has now been cast and counted), her ability to see Americans whose poverty renders them 'invisible' to the other candidates, her faith in the continued efforts of her supporters. It wasn't merely that she didn't concede, but that she didn't stop running, didn't stop attacking."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary's entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters -- instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama. Yes, there's a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made 'invisible?' Who's supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over. Hillary tonight was a woman standing down more than half her party's supporters and practically the entire Democratic establishment."
• Firedoglake's Cliff Schecter: "Hillary Clinton is 'making no decisions tonight.' The crowd erupts. Yes, drag this out longer. Smart. Elect McCain. Ensure that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Iraq War continues, tax cuts continue to reign down on CEOs and torture becomes state policy. Those are some smart Democrats cheering for that line."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Obama won tonight and she still can't concede. Take a flying leap. You lost. You nasty woman."
• Moulitsas: "She hasn't said one nice thing about Obama. It's all about her. Period. There is nothing else that matters."
• In a separate post, Moulitsas writes: "So Clinton, in her speech, once again mentioned the URL of her website, while the URL was all over her podium. You go to her website, and you're met with a petition they're asking visitors to sign [which says] 'I'm with you Hillary and I'm proud of everything we are fighting for.' If you 'sign' it, does it go to a 'thank you' page? Of course not. It goes straight to her contribute page. Money. That's why she's staying in. To squeeze her hardest core supporters of the cash necessary to pay off her personal loans to her campaign."

Open Left's Chris Bowers urges his readers to sign Clinton's online petition and ask her to suspend her campaign: "Since she asked, I suggest that you send her a message on her website. Tell her that it is time to suspend her campaign ASAP, and acknowledge that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Really, this needs to happen tomorrow, because otherwise the media focus will be on Clinton's refusal to concede and a continued division within the party. However, I will settle for Thursday, at the latest. [...] We have been divided long enough. The time for that division to end is now."

CLINTON SPEECH II: It's Over When She Says It's Over, And Not A Minute Sooner

Pro-Clinton bloggers defended Clinton's speech:

• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "The media floated false concession stories just as the polls were opening. Congressional leaders said wrap it up. Superdelegates, like loyal sheep, trickled in and declared their support for Barack Obama, pushing his pledged delegate lead, a number that unlike the certainty of a cast vote can fluctuate and change until the convention, above the 'magic number.' When the media crowned Obama the nominee in late afternoon and Hillary Clinton didn't play her scripted role of demure conceder, the pundits had the nerve to complain she was making the race about her instead of him. If I were Hillary Clinton tonight, I'd go home, put on my sweats, pour a large snifter of cognac and hum along with Janis [Joplin], singing 'Take Another Piece of My Heart.' She won't of course. Hillary doesn't have an ounce of victimhood in her. She'll get up tomorrow, just like today and proceed to make the decision she deems best for her supporters, her party and her country. So I'll do it for her, in her honor. As I've said many times, when she makes her decision, I'll honor it. I'll support the Democratic nominee because that's in the best interest of the country. But it's over when Hillary says it's over. And that's not tonight."
• Taylor Marsh: "Senator Clinton has her own path. She also doesn't need directions to find the next step. This will unfold as she chooses. She's earned that much. I will say again, I'm all in on a dream ticket. I think it would be unbeatable. I also think she's earned it if she wants it."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I'll be honest, my own preference, as a Democrat hoping for a unified party, would have had [Clinton] be more conciliatory. And perhaps she will be in the next few days. But there is something that a lot of these folks need to understand -- Hillary Clinton does not need you anymore. She is not going to be the nominee, [in my opinion]. She does not need their goodwill which they never offered in the first place. Hillary can be Senator for Life if she wants. Or anything else, except President or perhaps Vice President in 2009. Hillary will endorse Obama and campaign for him in the Fall. But as she made clear tonight. It will be on her own terms. Not anyone else's. And it is time for the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to deal with that reality. He is the presumptive nominee. It is his job now."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Personally, I don't think it's a big deal that she didn't concede tonight. Come on, tonight was Obama's night; she wants her concession to be her moment and hers alone. I do, however, hope it comes some time this week. If she still hasn't conceded by Friday, we really do have to start wondering what she's thinking."

OBAMA SPEECH: Another Home Run

Liberal bloggers are praising Obama's speech and comparing it very favorably to McCain's:

• Daily Kos' Hunter: "Jeez, McCain's people made a huge mistake scheduling a speech for tonight. Just huge. Compare McCain's sleepy, awkward sentences and forced grins to Obama's dramatic speaking style. Compare the venue -- McCain's was small and sleepy, Obama's is huge and energized. McCain's speech got interrupted to talk about Obama. And Obama has managed to hit McCain on the very themes of McCain's speech, a mere hour after McCain rambled through them. Giant, giant blunder by McCain's team. A head-to-head speech comparison on Obama's biggest night of the entire primary. What GOP idiot thought that would be a good idea?"
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Was that a speech, or what? [...] Raise your hand if you want to see McCain's speech played back to back with Obama's? Come on, raise those hands!"
• Beeton: "Barack's speech tonight was phenomenal."
• The Huffington Post's Joseph A. Palermo: "There were over 17,000 people inside and another 15,000 outside listening to Obama's speech tonight. Not since the 1968 campaign of Robert F. Kennedy has an American politician inspired such enthusiasm and fervor especially among the young people. Can anyone imagine either of the other candidates for president drawing 32,000 people to a spirited gathering? The energy tonight will far surpass anything the Republicans can muster at their convention. The Obama phenomenon has shown over and over again that this campaign is different, and that we are truly 'turning the page' and bringing about a sea change in the direction of our nation and our politics."

Sullivan, unsurprisingly, compared Obama's speech favorably to Clinton's: "Obama on Clinton: As classy as she was classless; as graceful as she was rigid; as generous as she was stingy. And an indicator that he would gladly have her in his cabinet but not on his ticket. The character difference between him and her could not be better exemplified."

MCCAIN SPEECH: Worst. Speech. Ever.

Liberal bloggers are ridiculing McCain's speech:

• Yglesias: "McCain is a very bad public speaker."
• Kleiman: "McCain's habit of giving himself a self-congratulatory smile every time he completes a sentence without stumbling or gets off what he thinks is a nifty zinger at his opponent gets more and more creepy the more he repeats it."
• Ezra Klein: "The content of McCain's speech is basically what you'd expect, but the delivery is really peculiar. His voice is artificially high, he's grinning more frequently then usual, his tone is jumping octaves to soften the end of his sentences. It's a cuddly, almost delicate delivery, as if he were reading a storybook to really young children. It's extremely disconcerting."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "McCain is often very good when he speaks extemporaneously. [...] He's also good in debates. But giving set piece speeches, let's face it, he's simply awful. He finds it impossible to pretend he's actually thinking what he's saying. But this whole speech is defensive in character (explaining why he's not running for Bush's third term), awkward and just feels old. The slogan seems to be: Am Not McSame!"
• Attaturk: "'Oh, Go with the Green Background...It'll make you look like the cottage cheese in a lime jello salad.' Always a good look for an older gentlemen. The aesthetics of McCain's speech, just mercifully completed before a slightly energized crowd of literally dozens, was awesome in how dreadful it was."
• Moulitsas: "I hope someone compares the acoustics of this event and Obama's. It sounds like McCain is in a high school auditorium, with bored parents watching a bad talent show. The applause is lackluster. The cheers and jeers weak. There is no excitement. Absolutely zero passion."
• Oliver Willis: "I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who saw the McCain speech and then the Obama speech and said to myself: WTF was McCain thinking? The man's been in government for a quarter century. He's been elected quite a few times. Yet somebody thought it was a good idea to put 200 disinterested people in a pool hall with a yucky green backdrop? And then Obama comes out with a mixed-gender mixed-ethnicity crowd of wildly enthusiastic folks and a world class speech? That contrast was your campaign ad."

MCCAIN SPEECH II: Out Of His Element

Many conservative bloggers are criticizing the delivery of McCain's speech, although some are also criticizing the content:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Of the three speeches given by the candidates tonight...I thought McCain's was the worst, at least in terms of delivery, 'production values,' and probably overall impact. In terms of substance, McCain is making progress, but the other stuff can't be ignored. I've argued that, for McCain, less splash can be more, and he certainly doesn't want to try and match Obama in the flash department. But neither does he want to come across as canned or listless. McCain is excellent in a conversational mode and decent in full speech mode. Tonight he seemed to be somewhere in between, and at times it wasn't pretty."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "A memo to the McCain campaign: If you want your candidate to steal Barack Obama's thunder, that's fine. Try having him give a good speech that doesn't involve him smiling broadly out of context over and over and over and over and over again. That may involve having McCain in a town hall forum where he is at his best, instead of having him give a formal speech where he is reading text and being stiff and uncomfortable. Whatever the winning formulation is, find it. Tonight's speech was awful."
• Michelle Malkin: "[McCain's speech is] pedestrian -- and even McCain seems to have lost interest in his text. He read a line about Obama making a good first impression, and the audience inexplicably laughed. Did I miss something?"
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "I agree with the consensus that McCain's delivery last night was weak. More than anything, I think it has to do with the venue. McCain is great at townhall meetings and Q&A's. He's also a decent debater. But he is not a good speech-giver. This is problematic because McCain's strength has always been his authenticity. But when he delivers a major speech (as opposed to off-the-cuff remarks), he lacks the same level of believability and passion. The good news is that his debate performances will probably have a much larger impact on whether or not he wins in November than his ability to give speeches."
• The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett: "No one expects McCain to match Barack Obama when it comes to doing magic with a teleprompter, but we've seen McCain do better than he did last night. Seeing last night's juxtaposition of the candidates' skills in this important area did not provide an encouraging kick-off to the general election for anxious conservatives."
• NRO's Mark Levin: "Not to offend those who might be offended, but this speech is a mash and tough to digest. You have to get through the self-congratulatory praise of independence and commander-in-chief pose from the Senate, then you have to try to follow the inconsistency of some of his big-government ideas vs. his anti-big-government rhetoric, and his inconsistency even on his supposed strength -- the surge in Iraq vs. closing GITMO and conferring additional rights on the detainees. I am also put off by some of the anti-Bush stuff. Distancing himself from Bush is one thing, but he almost exclusively (as best I can tell) criticizes him, giving Bush little credit (tax cuts, Supreme Court appointments and yes, the surge, which Bush ordered not McCain)."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt defends McCain's speech: "I can understand CNN's Jeffrey Toobin slamming McCain's speech as terrible and dull and poorly attended. He's in the tank for Obama, and on such things the left places great weight. But I don't understand the pile on at The Corner. McCain gave a serious talk that centered on the war, and especially on the point that if Obama had been in charge, we'd have lost by now and incredible chaos and perhaps genocide would be unfolding in that country. [...] I don't expect the left to note such things, but I hadn't thought that the values of MSNBC which elevate cliched rhetoric and the celebration of style over substance had spread so far. I battled for anyone but McCain for a very long time, but now the choice isn't whether I'd prefer a different GOP nominee or whether McCain could use a better backdrop or more skilled advancemen. It is whether we fight the war to win or just give up. It is disturbing to see some on the right easily distracted from what William F. Buckley would never have lost sight of: This is a very serious business, and the nagging of our nominee over trivialities is a gift to Obama."

OBAMA: Weak, Weak, Weak

Conservative bloggers continue to portray Obama as a weak nominee:

• Lewis: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, Obama won. How did he get here? He had a great run. There were about 10 days in February where he won 11 consecutive contests. Since then, he hasn't done well at all (think PA, OH, WV, etc.). Tonight is a prime example. On the same night when he clinches the nomination, he also lost South Dakota. He has a narrow lead (at least, for now) in Montana. He's like a football team who clinches the division, then loses their last four games. Does anyone else think he's sort of 'backing into the playoffs'?"
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Lost in last night's Obama self-back-patting was the fact that few nominees have ever limped to the finish line so weakly. For at least two solid months, EVERYbody in Conventional Wisdomland had said Obama would easily win both Montana and South Dakota. (Yes, in the last week a few had said South Dakota might be close, but even they were wrong.) Instead, he got walloped in South Dakota despite the strong and longstanding support of every major Democratic political figure in the state. This comes on top of weak showings in a whole string of states. When the smoke clears, it will be evident that among elected delegates (i.e., not superdelegates) he will barely beat Clinton, and that his overall margin right now comes substantially from his growing edge in superdelegates."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "Obama ends the last 3 months of the primary season more than 600,000 votes in the hole, losing the popular vote decisively to Hillary over a stretch of 16 primaries in which 13 million votes were cast. [...] It's Obama's weakness in that period even within his own party that has to be troubling to Democrats pondering his chances in November. Recall that Obama faced virtually no serious scrutiny until he pulled within 20 points of Hillary in the national popular vote in mid-December in the immediate aftermath of Oprah [Winfrey]'s campaign appearances on his behalf (he didn't pull within single digits until after he won Iowa); it was only after he was christened the clear frontrunner that he started to take serious fire, beginning in late February and early March with Hillary's '3 a.m.' ad, the [Austan] Goolsbee/NAFTA flap, and of course the Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright story, and continuing with the accumulation his radical left-wing associations, his endless stream of verbal flubs, and his ever-growing list of friends, mentors and staffers cast under the bus."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "The good news for John McCain: Obama spoke took late to make much of the newspaper coverage. [...] And, better yet, the 'stumbling' to the finish line storyline was given new oxygen by Barack Obama's loss in South Dakota. [...] McCain got some help as Hillary Clinton got her share of ink and attention over the 'What does she want?' issue. (Can Obama imagine four or eight years of lime-light stealing?) It was not lost on the press that Clinton is attempting to strong-arm the new nominee. [...] Clinton is doing her best (or at least having the effect) of making Obama in his moment of glory weaker and less in command than he no doubt would like."

OBAMA II: Enough About Webb, Let's Talk About Wes

Open Left's Matt Stoller argues that Obama should pick Gen. Wes Clark as his running mate: "Clark, though not in elected office, has a better sense [than VA Sen. Jim Webb] of what it's like to run for President. He has after all done it before, and for a neophyte, he did very well. More importantly, he has excelled at the real job of a VP candidate, which is not getting votes for the top of the ticket, but being a surrogate for the campaign and for lower ticket races. [...] Clark is heavily involved in both his own PAC and Votevets, raising money and supporting Democrats up and down the ticket. He has huge credibility with officials all over the country because he was reliable and helpful to groups, candidates, and activists. There is simply no one else who comes close to his ability and track record of delivering a persuasive and progressive argument on national security on behalf of Democrats. On the other political point, Clark is a Clintonista through and through, and so putting him on the ticket would be a key signal to the Clinton world that they will have influence in an Obama administration. You may not like that, but the Clinton people need an incentive to work aggressively for the ticket, and Clark is that incentive. While Obama backers may not like a Clinton person having such an important seat that the table, Clark is actually a supremely progressive advocate, and probably the best Clinton loyalist on national security issues that progressives have."

Many liberal bloggers find Stoller's argument persuasive, although some have misgivings:

• Benen: "Matt touches all the bases. [...] I'd just add that Clark does not have any obvious personal baggage -- folks went looking for dirt in '04 and didn't come up with anything. And, obviously, he comes with the kind of national security bona fides that are unrivaled by any political figure in the country. As for the 'unifying' factor, I think it's also fair to say that Clark is definitely considered a Clinton loyalist. If the Obama campaign wanted to send a signal about bringing the camps together, Clark would appear to largely fit the bill. But as long as we're engaging in speculation, let's also take a look at the downsides. First, for Clinton's most ardent supporters, there is no substitute for Clinton herself. [...] Second, and on a related note, for those Clinton supporters for whom gender is a key priority, Clark obviously doesn't fit the bill. [...] Third, pundits and talking heads will probably dismiss Clark as someone who sought national office once, and wasn't an especially impressive candidate. [...] And fourth -- and this is a big one -- Clark hasn't been especially complimentary to Barack Obama. [...] I like Clark a lot, and believe the positives easily outweigh the negatives. But given some of the comments Clark has made about Obama, it might be a tough sell."
• Kleiman: "Like Matt, I was a big Clark fan in 2004. In many ways, he reinforces Obama's strengths: they're both seriously smart people, both intellectuals capable of writing real books and interested in figuring things out, both meritocrats who made their way in the world from unprivileged backgrounds, both calm and balanced, both capable of generating fervor in their followers, both good counter-punchers. [...] His military record (including a Silver Star) is more than a match for McCain's. Having gone through a Presidential campaign relatively unscathed personally, Clark can reasonably be assumed to be just about baggage-free. [...] If, to add to all those personal virtues, it's also true that Clark's loyalty to the Clintons is reciprocated (not something I'd want to assume) and that having Clark on the ticket would lock in their strong support for Obama, that would make him, in my view, the strongest choice. [...] On the other hand, Clark didn't leave many friends behind him among the brass. We'd have to expect some continued sniping from that quarter. On the other hand, that stuff is now a decade old and got aired out last time, which probably puts it past the journalistic Statute of Limitations."
• Yglesias: "Matt Stoller makes the case for Wesley Clark as Vice President and it's a pretty good case. [...] One idiosyncratic interest of mine in this would be that it would provide an opportunity for some discussion of how nutty the [William] Kristol/McCain attack from the right on the Clinton administration's prosecution of the Kosovo War was."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Eloquence Overrated?

NRO's Rick Brookhiser:

"The most eloquent men in American political history were Patrick Henry, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and William Jennings Bryan. The last three wanted to be president; none succeeded. We remember [Ronald] Reagan as the great communicator, and he certainly was. But I covered him, John Connally and Jesse Jackson; the last two were better speakers. We all read the speeches of Abraham Lincoln, but he was not the headliner at Gettysburg (that was Edward Everett). Probably Charles Sumner was the most eloquent man in the north during his lifetime. I assume that any southerner can out talk three northerners before breakfast."

LEST WE FORGET: A Sports Parable

The New Republic's Christopher Orr demands justice for the Detroit Pistons (h/t Yglesias):

"Once you abandon the artificial four-games-to-two framework that the media has tried to impose on the series, a very different picture emerges, with the Celtics leading by a mere 549 points to 539. Yes that's right, the margin between the two teams is less than one percent -- a tie, for all intents and purposes. This is probably the closest Conference Finals in NBA history, though I will thank you not to check on that.

How do we determine a winner in a series so historically close? First off, let's look at these so-called 'free' throws, which are anything but. Who decides when these are to be awarded? Hard-working working-people like you and me? No, it's the officials, the league bosses, the elites. So no counting the free throws -- unless and until (and I sincerely hope you guys are listening) the refs start breaking our way again. (By the way, you guys do know that Celts star Paul Pierce was involved in a stabbing a few years back, right? I only mention it because [Lakers coach] Phil Jackson is obviously going to bring it up in the Finals.) [...]

We again ask the league to consider all these facts and come to a fair solution. I'll be holding a press conference at the Palace tonight, to which I'm inviting all Pistons season-ticket holders. I may announce our intention to drop out of the Eastern Conference Finals. Or I may not. But know one thing: If the media and league elites put the Celtics up against LA, they will lose, and we'll be the first to say I told you so."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 4, 2008 01:35 PM