Someone asked about post-convention bounces. This AP quickly works through the history of the post-convention bounce (average is 10 points) from 1964 to the present. It is probably true that the bounce will mean less than normal because the two conventions.
By the way, I thought Obama’s speech last night was not his best. I think the combination of becoming more aggressive about McCain, giving his own bio again, and then a a recitation of programs turned a bit humdrum by the end. This surprised me, even though the media had been repeating the mantra all day that the Obama people were calling the speech workmanlike. They were right. Today’s two inch-bold headline in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, "IT’S TIME TO CHANGE AMERICA", is not as useful to Obama as the generic word "change" might be, since that is easily associated with mere policy. As the fat guy at the gas station this morning said when he noticed the headline: "Sure hope he tells us what about America needs changing and maybe even tells us why." I bet this guy didn’t have a PhD!
So, it's the "new politics" where we come together and hug, but attack our opponents. It's the "new politics" in which we get lots of old politics welfare state programs. It's the "new politics" of pacifist diplomacy but where we go after our enemies. It's the "new politics" of going to Washington to clean things up but choosing a Washington insider as VP. I guess I'm very confused! The most interesting thing to watch when people are interviewed about Obama such as Michael Dukakis and watching them sputter every time they are asked about what Obama has done. It reminds of the quote - about FDR? - that he was an unqualified man who would very much like to be president. How apt. I didn't think it would be the DNC that would give me hope that McCain could win. Obama's progressivism sold as centrism is not convincing that many people, and I'm not sure he and Michelle were convinced either.
I found this speech surprisingly poor -- it was mendacious beyond anything I have heard in a long time -- insulting and angry. It was mostly confined to "red meat" Democrat politics, and did nothing to reach out to voters who are suspicious of government with good reason. It was silent regarding the massive issue of the judicial branch.
Since Saddleback, when McCain showed himself to be a decisive executive type while BO was largely a Harvard-trained legislator weighing pros and cons without answering questions, I have guessed that he would have to show a stronger persona in the general campaign. A man so personally weak as he is can only do this by acting angry. That's what he did last night. In the long run, and especially in debate with Mac, this will not work; BO's anger is no substitute for Mac's decisiveness.
My personal reaction as a Republican was frankly indignation at his dishonoring of the President who has saved America for the last 7 years from a new, more devastating terrorist attack -- it's almost impossible to imagine a President Gore, much less Obama, putting the Islamic terrorists on the defensive by carrying the struggle to their own land as Bush has. Even last night he showed his lack of any sense of global strategy, claiming that "You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq." To the contrary, the fight in Iraq -- the center of AlQueda's efforts if Osama bin Laden is to be believed -- has almost collapsed the AQ network which has apparently retreated to a corner of Pak. and Afghan. because it has nowhere else to go.
If BO wanted to inspire Republicans to become active and enthusiastic for McCain, he could not have chosen a better way to do it than by giving that dishonest liberal speech last night.
Am the only one who thinks of diapers when I read "It's Time to Change America?" Does Obama think the country is one giant baby that needs him to take care of it?
Most interesting/ amusing comment of the night last night for my money was Sean Wilentz saying that Obama reminds him more of Jimmy Carter than of anyone else.
"...dishonoring of the President who has saved America for the last 7 years from a new, more devastating terrorist attack."? Always good to hear from the 22 percenters once in a while. I think the team of "Pallid and Palin" is pretty weak, but it was sure difficult to get past the look of 'panic' in the eyes of that stadium full of 80 thousand people.
This stadium full of people on a national scale represents 0.026% of the estimated "legal" population of the US and, say, 0.075% of the voters. Factoring in the illegals of course drives these percentages way down, but then illegals don't vote unless they are fortunate enough to live in states that do not require IDs at the poll. Still, the folks at Juan's Green Cards R Us, have of late improve their product considerably.
As with the Berlin speech the voters in the BO crowd were vanishingly small. Hell! if someone promised me Bruce Springsteen, I'd be there with my roach clip and Bic lighter, hummin' doobie, doobie, do, too! Too bad the Boss ain't runnin'. I guess if "you're
blinded by the light..." this sort of thing works for you.
Richard Adams, diapers? Yes, definitely. I thought it was a mommy thing.
"Mommy things" will have more cache, now.
Obama's speech sure was NOT designed make Republicans feel good about his nomination. If BO wanted to inspire Republicans to become active and enthusiastic for McCain, he could not have chosen a better way to do it than by giving that dishonest liberal speech last night. by dennis, is just right.
A sour, hectoring, class-warfare speech. Democrap.
See David Broder's column at the Washington Post. He panned the Obama speech as well. Called it "Democrap" without using the word.