August 28, 2008

8/28: Watching And Waiting

Liberal bloggers were impressed by the speeches delivered last night by Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and (most surprisingly) John Kerry. Biden's and Kerry's combative speeches helped to reassure bloggers who were concerned about what they perceived to be the lack of harsh attacks on John McCain.

Still, it cannot be said that the netroots consider the first three days of the convention a total success. Matt Stoller complains that the convention has been "less...purposeful than I expected" while Chris Bowers worries that Barack Obama will receive little or no polling bounce. The netroots expect McCain's surrogates to savage Obama during next week's GOP convention, and they aren't convinced that Dems have done enough to "soften the impact of these attacks and themes or create a counternarrative for the media to cover". Will Obama reassure liberal bloggers by delivering a killer speech tonight? And, better yet, will he receive a post-convention polling bounce?

DEM CONVO: The Pit Of My Stomach

There is a lot of teeth-gnashing in the liberal blogosphere about the way the convention has gone so far:

• Open Left's Bowers: "I am feeling really frustrated today. I am sensing that something is wrong with this convention, and that there will be no bounce. I don't know exactly what we need to do to get a bounce, but I do know that we haven't done it yet. [...] Although I might be dangerously treading into 'I know it when I see it' territory, I knew after [Al] Gore's convention 2000 speech that he would get a bump, while I had a really bad feeling after the 2004 convention. The polling backed me up in both cases. The tracking polls today show Obama ahead by 1 (Gallup) and behind by 1 (Rasmussen). Remember that this is after more than three days where Democrats, from the VP pick to the convention, have completely dominated news coverage. We haven't gained any ground from last week, and have in fact lost some. That is not a good sign. Call me a hand-wringer or whatever, but I am nervous."
• Open Left's Stoller: "I find this convention much less, I don't know, purposeful than I expected. There are very few memorable speeches or lines, certainly nothing like [ex-TX Gov.] Ann Richards in 1992."
• publius: "I haven't been that crazy about the convention thus far. [...] Everything seems very meta. John McCain is more of the same -- we've heard that. But we haven't heard enough about what exactly makes him more of the same. Also, we've heard a lot about change, but too little that speaks to struggling middle class people. Interestingly enough, I thought Bill Clinton's speech was actually the best on this front. Don't get me wrong -- the speeches are good, and there haven't been any errors. It just seems a little blah and boring. And, frankly, I'd like to see a little more ridicule and spice -- because God knows it's coming next week."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "This analysis of recent polling suggests that Obama's flagging numbers are due to the most conservative Democrats in the party defecting. The weak tea at this years' convention is unlikely to get anyone riled up, least likely those who are thinking very seriously about voting for John McCain."

Ezra Klein criticizes the first half of the convention: "Say what you will about the 2004 Convention, it had a theme. Conversely, the first night of the 2008 Democratic Convention had Michelle Obama bring the warm and fuzzies, Ted Kennedy calling forth tears and hankies, and Jim Leach speaking quietly and pedantically without any serious promotion from the Obama campaign. The second night of the 2004 Convention saw Barack Obama tearing apart the arena. In 2008, we had Mark Warner with a well-crafted speech that fell flat because it was an attack structure that refused to name the politician it was attacking. You had Hillary Cinton giving a powerful address, but it was an address that was broadly aimed at problems in the Democratic Party, not the problems with the Republican Party."

Klein continues: "The first two days of the convention were wasted, or seemed so from my vantage point. Tonight, Joe Biden will rip into McCain. And tomorrow, Obama will do whatever he does. Then on Friday, at noon, John McCain will announce his vice presidential nominee, strangling any convention bounce in the crib. Then the Republican Convention will begin, and you can be assured that they will remember Barack Obama's name. They will remember how to make fun of him, how to mock his celebrity and inexperience. And the media will not cover Ron Paul's protesters with the vigor or attention they gave to Hillary Clinton's diehards. Instead, they will cover four days of straight attacks on Barack Obama, culminating with a grave address about sacrifice and service from John McCain. And unless Obama's convention makes a sharp turn tonight and tomorrow, they will have done nothing to soften the impact of these attacks and themes or create a counternarrative for the media to cover."

DEM CONVO II: Get More Personal, Dems!

Several bloggers are complaining that Dem attacks on McCain have been insufficiently personal:

• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "What continues to be missing is a frame to explain why John McCain believes all these wrongheaded things he talks about. But it's very simple. McCain used to stand against the ideologues and moneyed interests of the GOP, but he decided that if he wanted to win the GOP nomination, he had to make himself their ally. I suspect Democrats will regret this when Republicans tear Barack Obama's character apart next week."
• Time's Amy Sullivan: "It's three nights into the Democratic Convention and a pattern is emerging. A number of speakers have made reference to their personal friendship with John McCain, carefully noting how much they admire him, before going on to criticize him. And that's effective to a point -- 'more in sorrow than in anger' plays differently than straight-on attacks. But Democrats might find it would be more effective if they explained why they're so disappointed with their friend John McCain. How did this great guy they admire so much became a candidate whose positions appall them? It wasn't a fluke, it wasn't like he had a personality transplant. And the answer would seem to fit perfectly into a powerful Democratic narrative. John McCain changed because that's what he had to do to win the Republican nomination. That's what the reigning conservative ideology and interests demanded of him. [...] Democrats may need to find a more direct way of describing McCain's transformation (flip-flops, if you will). Their current version leaves open the possibility that this good, decent man could revert to his old self -- and that's not something Democrats want undecided voters to believe."
• Drum: "McCain has had to prostrate himself to the neocons, the theocons, and the moneycons because that's what it takes to win the Republican nomination these days: you have to be a good soldier. And one way or another that's a story that the Democrats need to tell. A laundry list of flip-flops doesn't make an impression unless you explain what's behind it. [...Obama] needs to make people understand that all the stuff they don't like about the past eight years isn't just the fault of one guy's idiosyncrasies, it's the fault of an entire worldview. And if you elect McCain, you're electing that worldview too."
• The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "While the McCain Republicans have launched brutal, personal and callow attacks on Obama's integrity, sincerity, and patriotism, the Obama Democrats have treated McCain with respect and deference -- more respect and deference than his nasty, petty, little campaign deserves. They are taking a risk."

DEM CONVO III: Dear Debbie Downers...

Other liberal bloggers feel more positively about the convention:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Democrats sure are a bunch of nervous nellies, aren't they? And hey -- I admit that I've gotten up a couple of times this week with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach too. [...] But look. There's a reason I blog with my fingers, not with the pit of my stomach, and the fundamentals of the race really haven't changed that much. After four weeks of nonstop attacks from the McCain machine Obama is still a couple of points ahead in the polls with plenty of time left until election day. He hasn't raised as much money as he'd hoped, but he's still outraising McCain by a sizeable margin. Over the course of the campaign I think Joe Biden is going to be a surprisingly strong asset. [...] And call me a goggle-eyed optimist (no, really, go ahead), but I still think that at some point the press is going to tire of McCain's schtick. His slime is so patent, his pandering is so obvious, his lack of seriousness is so palpable, and his attacks are so transparent, that it just has to eventually get through to them. I'm well aware that history isn't on my side here, but still I hope. These folks have to have a little pride, don't they?"
• digby: "I haven't been able to discern any overarching theme and I'd have loved to see more Republican bashing, but overall I still think it's been a good convention for the Democrats and not because the so-called rift has been healed. [...] It's been a good convention because the 'civil war' storyline actually ended up revealing that the Democratic leadership, for all their faults, has far more firepower than the tired freakshow the Republicans are going to throw out next week. The young generation, from Obama to Beau [Biden] and the older generation from Bill and Hillary to Joe are all politicians of stature compared to the D-list of oddballs (even by Republican standards) who will be on the stage in Minneapolis -- [Rudy] Giuliani, [Mitt] Romney, McCain, [Mike] Huckabee, [Joe] Lieberman etc."

BIDEN: Joe Comes Out Swinging

Most liberal bloggers liked Biden's speech -- especially his attacks on McCain:

• Klein: "I thought [Biden's] speech was very well-aimed. Biden's oratory didn't soar; it lowered its shoulder and charged. Not a decisive piece of oratory, but a solid, grounded attack on McCain, and a confident restatement of the campaign's principles and loyalties. [...] Biden's speech tonight didn't bring anyone to tears, but it's the sort of message that carries you through an election. The Obama campaign isn't fighting the primary anymore. They don't need to be beautiful so much as they need to be effective."
• Bowers: "Joe Biden lacked poetry, but he really, really hammered McCain. Given that is what I have hoped to hear from Democrats for so long during this campaign, it was great to hear. He seems to be every bit of the attack dog that we had hoped for when the short list became clear."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "That was a great speech. Nicely delivered. And went to the key points -- pumped up Obama and made the case against John McCain. Exactly what was needed."
• Arianna Huffington: "[The second half of Biden's speech] was a powerful indictment of McCain -- a heaping, close-to-9-minute serving of the red meat that has been sorely missing from the convention menu this week -- and effectively made the case that national security is actually John McCain's weakness. That's a point Democrats need to relentlessly hammer home from now until Election Day. Even when it's not national security night."

CLINTON: The Big Dog Returns

Most liberal bloggers were impressed by Clinton's speech, although a few of them had minor quibbles:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "May I just observe that while Barack Obama relies on having well-written speeches to make his oratorical performances impressive, Bill Clinton is just relying on pure skills of awesomeness to make texts that are pretty disjointed on the page seem incredibly compelling."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "God, I love Bill Clinton. I just can't not like him."
• Atrios: "Big Dog showed why he earned the name."
• Marshall: "Very solid speech. Classic Bill. Sort of reminds me of the weird anguish of last spring, thinking we'd never see this guy again. He did what he needed to do. And he got things moving in a direction the convention needs to go. [...] Also good that he said one thing -- John McCain's an 'extremist.' We need to hear that again and again, because it has the virtue of being true."
• Drum: "Overall it was, of course, a great speech. The guy's a natural. And that line about people the world over being 'more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power'? Pure Bill."
• The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow: "I did think he was too soft on McCain, overpraising his independence and failing to note the flip-flops and reversals that have marked McCain's campaign. But these are minor quibbles. Will this speech help Obama in the general election? Almost certainly, and Obama would be wise to draw on Bill extensively in the coming campaign. Will it help heal the Democratic Party? Definitely."

FiveThirtyEight's Sean wasn't thrilled by Clinton's speech: "Bill Clinton did ok. He beat the spread. But this was no home run. [...He did] what Hillary [Clinton] didn't last night, which [was] to explicitly address the experience question and say Obama is ready to be president. It was a good moment, but not much more than a declarative statement without what Bill typically does best in speeches, make an argument. Is the sound bite enough? 'Sound familiar?' Yeah, Bill, it sounds like January through early June, 2008."

Klein wished Clinton had directly attacked McCain: "It was striking that Bill Clinton never uttered the words 'John McCain.' Four years ago, that steady insistence on retaining the robes of the presidency, levitating an inch or two above the fray, made sense. It was Clinton choosing a particular, and honorable, path that forever defined him as an ex-president rather than an ex-candidate. But after heatedly involving himself in the Democratic primary, after often attacking Barack Obama by name, it seemed peculiar that he would hold that portion of himself in reserve. Four years ago, Clinton wasn't a campaigner. This year, he was."

Huffington wishes Clinton had spent more time talking about national security: "[Clinton] didn't even try to make the case about all the ways McCain would make us less safe -- giving him a virtual free pass on this vital question. Yes, the former president forcefully made the point that the charge of youth and inexperience being leveled at Obama was the same charge leveled at him in 1992. But he never made the case why Obama would be better at keeping us safe, beyond saying he would try diplomacy first. So while it was good to have Clinton unequivocally voice his support for Obama and lend his considerable authority to the case that Obama is ready to lead, his speech felt like a squandered opportunity. A squandered opportunity that reinforced the notion that Democrats either don't know how to talk about -- or don't have the stomach for talking about -- national security. It felt very pre-9/11."

KERRY: Lowering The Boom

Liberal bloggers were surprised and delighted by Kerry's speech, which included some sharp attacks on McCain:

• Marshall: "I think the speech I just saw John Kerry give is the best one I've heard at this convention. And I do not have any doubt that it's the best I've ever heard from him."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Kerry has more passion in his voice talking about Republican political tricks and questioning Democrats' patriotism than I've ever heard from him, even his own acceptance speech. Is this the best speech of John Kerry's life?"
• Bowers: "John Kerry actually, really, and completely kicked ass. He ripped into McCain, and was very clear in his attacks. Either he was a lot better as a speaker tonight than he was during the campaign four years ago, or we are not giving him credit for being a strong candidate. (The latter is actually quite possible, given that Kerry outperformed the national Democratic House vote in 2004.)"
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "[Kerry] is offering up exactly what this convention has been missing. Strong linkages between McCain and [George W.] Bush. Humor. And a great refrain that has become a call and response with the audience. 'Who can we trust to keep America safe? Barack Obama!'"
• The Nation's John Nichols: "If Democrats are looking for a template to apply in the fall campaign, they could do no better than the one Kerry offered them Wednesday night. Indeed, had Kerry been as aggressive as this in 2004, this week's convention might well be nominating him for a second term."
• Crooks and Liars' SilentPatriot: "All I have to say is: Where was this guy in 2004?"

OBAMA: Such Hubris!

Conservative bloggers are mocking Obama after the Daily Mail reported that his acceptance speech "will be delivered from an elaborate columned platform resembling a miniature Greek temple":

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "The jokes are starting already. The O-cropolis. Toga instructions from the McCain campaign. My Big Fat Greek Acceptance Speech. Obama's Oddessey. The Barackolis. Is it supposed to look like the Lincoln Memorial? The Brandenberg Gate? The Parthenon? The White House? The Isle of Lesbos? Maybe, just maybe, it will look a lot better on television. But it's hard to believe, based on what we've seen so far. The leading theory is that the Obama leadership is in a bubble, were completely blindsided by the 'Celebrity' ad, and they continue to see organizing a presidential campaign as akin to putting on the greatest Super Bowl halftime show in history."
• Michelle Malkin: "Fake Greek columns? Check. Will he be backlit with his famous glowing halo, too? Who designed the stage, anyway? The Chinese Olympic ceremony planners? And will the thousands of worshipers kneel before the temple and raise their hands dutifully in the Magical O?"
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "The only way Bambi could better fit into the caricature that the McCain campaign has painted of him would be if he wore a cape and had members of Code Pink throwing rose petals in his path as he walked to the podium."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "We've heard the pushback on Barackopolis 1.0, to the general gist that Bush's speech was in an area that more or less had columns. To which I note two things: (1.) President Bush did not attempt to recreate either the Parthenon -- or, now, apparently, the White House. (2.) Even if he had... George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America. Barack Obama is a first-term Senator who got the job because Jack Ryan couldn't help but show off to a bunch of sex-club enthusiasts that he had Seven of Nine warming his bed. Put another way: the hypothetical Bush would have merely been arrogant. The actual Obama is being hubristic."

OBAMA II: Pot, Meet Kettle

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against the criticism of Obama's Greek pillars by pointing out that Bush delivered his 2004 acceptance speech on a stage with Greek pillars:

"Republicans who are mocking Obama's appearance haven't mentioned it, but George W. Bush accepted his own nomination in 2004 on a set with a similar neoclassical theme, with columns rising on either side of him, as the pictures above and below show. Indeed, the Bush set and the Obama sets currently look strikingly similar, with the podium set well in front of the columns, and connected by a path. The attachment to kitsch, particularly at political conventions, is clearly bipartisan."

• Serwer: "Attention, Republicans everywhere who are scandalized by the stage decorations at Barack Obama's planned speech on Thursday: Your great and powerful leader did it first."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "What people fail to remember is that no matter what [the Obama camp] did, the wingnuts and their surrogates would have a field day no matter what. You really don't have to read folks like Tom Maguire for too long (and I have been reading him for years) to realize that no matter what the backdrop was, he and others would be mocking it. If it were nothing but American flags, Tom and others would claim he is really over-doing the patriotism because he knows he is weak on the issue. If it were just a normal stage with a few flags, Tom and others would claim it seems like he is afraid of overdoing the flags because the left-wing base hates America and would be turned off. Heads they win, tails you lose. So it is Greek columns in the background, and Tom and others are mocking it. I am shocked by this turn of events."

Marshall adds: "We do all know that virtually every American civic building is based on Greek Revival architecture, right? And that the Obama backdrop actually looks like -- whether intended or not, I don't know -- the Lincoln Memorial. (Remember, they're both Illinoisians.) Perhaps because Obama's speech is on the 45th anniversary of [Dr. Martin Luther] King's 'I Have A Dream' speech."

OBAMA III: Bully-Boy Tactics?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama after his campaign launched an effort to disrupt a radio appearance by Stanley Kurtz, the National Review writer who has been writing about Obama's relationship with ex-Weather Underground member William Ayers:

• Malkin: "First, they came for TV stations daring to air an independent ad about Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Next, they came for GOP donors. Now, they are shamelessly attacking National Review investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz -- one of conservatism's most thoughtful and penetrating writers on academic and educational affairs."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Team Obama has become so overwrought at the mere thought of criticism that they now overreact on a constant basis. It's a measure of the fear in the campaign that they have decided that they cannot abide any criticism at all, and instead of simply responding to it, they attempt to silence it instead."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Barack Obama hates debate, but loves bully-boy tactics."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "The Obama campaign is giving us a frightening glimpse of how unfit they are to wield power."

MCCAIN VEEPSTAKES: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dark Horse?

NRO's Larry Kudlow reports that TX Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a finalist for the job of McCain's running mate: "Sources tell me that the two finalists for Mac's veep are Tim Pawlenty and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Obviously, with the Hillary women's revolt on the floor of the DNC and outside, McCain has a great opportunity if he nominates a woman. My favorite was Alaska governor Sarah Palin. But she has been compromised by a bogus Alaska legislative investigation. So now all eyes are turning to Senator Hutchison, who has a strong conservative record down through the years. She's a steady performer who will not be cowed by Joe Biden in the debates. I know her well and I have high respect for her. This doesn't mean Governor Pawlenty is out, it just means that Ms. Hutchison has moved high up on the list."

Geraghty finds this rumor "plausible": "The McCain campaign has been hammering Obama with Hillary-centric ads. They obviously think a lot of Hillary's supporters are in play. George H. W. Bush was surprised when Ronald Reagan asked him."

Many conservative bloggers are opposed to the idea of McCain choosing Hutchison:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Note to the McCain Camp: Romney is crashing in InTrade and Kay Bailey Hutchison is going up. I'll remind you all she is pro-choice and I'll tell you all I will puke on my keyboard if she is the pick and probably will cease being excited about your campaign. She'll be a good governor. She is not an inspiring Veep Pick. And I speak for a large, large number of Republicans. That is all."
• NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "What has she done in her terms in the Senate? She gets into pictures at bill signings. She is smart enough for the U.S. Senate (like Biden), but one has never heard her say anything thought provoking. Could she really hold her own against the glib Biden? Not clear. [...] In terms of her personality -- what used to be called 'Q-ratings' -- she doesn't strike me as much of an improvement on Romney -- who is current on the issues and has executive experience, and a recently honed asperity that works. I am certain that Hutchison is wonderful and charming in person. It's just not clear what her ability to connect, or make the sale with voters would be. Absent those qualities, the scent of tokenism pervades the air. Not the worst thing. But it's more like Geraldine Ferraro than Hillary Clinton."

Meanwhile, NRO's Byron York thinks it's Pawlenty: "From the calls I've made and the conversations I've had, I would say the person to watch is Pawlenty. No Romney, no Lieberman -- although the people I talk to still think (worry?) that there is a chance McCain has a surprise up his sleeve."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: A Missed Opportunity?

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat echoes many liberal bloggers in his criticism of the Dem convention:

"The Democrats are holding their convention at a time when the GOP nominee is reasonably popular, his party is reasonably unpopular, and the current President, a Republican, is extremely unpopular. It's easy to say when you don't have to actually organize the damn thing, but I think that they could be doing a far better job than they are so far of using Denver as a four-day clinic on how John McCain will be just as bad as Bush, if not much, much worse. There's still time to make hay on this front, obviously, but so far I think the convention has been a big fat missed opportunity."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Modifies 'Yes We Can' Message To Exclude Area Loser

From The Onion:

"COLUMBIA, SC -- In a nationally televised speech Friday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama altered his vision of a unified America to exclude Dayton, OH loser Nate Walsh.

According to Obama, the 32-year-old Walsh, who has lived with his parents intermittently since receiving his associate's degree in 2001 and still does not have a credit card in his own name, no longer figures into the senator's long-term plan of rallying Americans from all walks of life around a common, higher purpose.

'People of South Carolina, people of the world, this is our time, this is our moment,' Obama said before 72,000 supporters at the University of South Carolina's Williams-Brice Stadium. 'That is, unless you live in apartment 3L at 1254 Holden St., you watched Money Train on TBS last night at 3 a.m., and your name is Nate Walsh.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at August 28, 2008 01:35 PM