The 2004 convention had a theme, sure. A lot of good it did.

Maybe having a convention with a strong theme doesn't matter.

You ask, what's the point of the convention so far, to show that "Obama's an American with a recognizable history of growing up in a place and doing some stuff and loving his family?"

Well, yeah. Considering the portrayal by his opponents of Obama as something radically different than what we're comfortable with and what we can tolerate as a president, this is a necessary starting point. It needs to be demonstrated to a lot of people that Obama and Michelle are not all the things portrayed on the New Yorker cover. Sad that it's necessary, but it seems that it is.

I agree with every word of this. At the time I thought the 2004 convention was the most successful thing the Democratic party had pulled off in my lifetime. My hope now, given the limited impact that 2004 actually had, is that somehow namby-pambyism is more electorally appealing, but I doubt it.

I can't say that I've ever had a general philosophy of what conventions 'should' do, but in 2004 I thought we were sunk the moment John Kerry emerged to speak as Goofus McDoofus and said "Joooohn Kerrrry repoooorting for dooooooody!" and saluted. That's when I knew we were lost.

I don't disagree with any of Ezra's critiques of the convention, but I still don't feel any pessimism about Obama's chances. This is a change election and Obama is the candidate of change. When voters step into the voting booth on Nov. 4 all of the silliness of the campaign about celebrity, commander-in-chief thresholds, etc. will wash away and they'll have to ask themselves, "Do I want more of the same crap Bush gave us the last 8 years or something different?" It won't be a hard decision for most.

I thought the 2004 convention was cringe inducingly phony. Kerry running on his service in Vietnam was, in hindsight, the stupidest decision of the campaign for any number of reasons. Not only did it make Vietnam a focus of the campaign (always a loser issue for Dems, sad to say), but the Republican-lite paen to military service in Vietnam was contradicted by Kerry's own post-war statements and actions. I don't fault Kerry for courageously opposing an unjust war when he came back, but with the "reporting for duty" crap he set himself up for a fall. The Swift Boat attacks would never have had the impact they did if Kerry and the Dems had not tried to make a strength out of what was, in reality, a weakness. And the Republicans used Kerry's phoniness on Vietnam to feed the larger narrative that he was a phony.

I don't know whether this convention will be successful, but the idea the that post-Bush America will elect Obama as long as they're not too afraid of him is not a crazy idea.

"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."

When you have a "post-partisan" nominee who self-consciously stands outside the Party, it's kinda hard to have a coherent Party convention...

Say what you will about the 2004 Convention…

Okay: it was terrible. That was a convention that famously made a point of not referring to Bush too much, and that's the one you chose for a contrast? Somehow the nifty theme of "reporting for duty" is supposed to make up for Kerry losing that election? You need to take a deep breath because you're not coming off as a very thoughtful blogger right now, frankly.

Michelle Obama couldn't credibly launch a devastating attack on McCain; she doesn't have the political credentials. Clinton's speech had some pretty sharp attacks (and is probably the only time most voters were even tuning in) and opened the door for what we'll see today and tomorrow. LET US RELAX.

I don't understand why it is so hard to learn the lesson -- negative campaigning works. The media (see Brokaw, Tom) will present McCain as a maverick. The swing voter won't see him as 4 more years of Bush. They will see Obama as scary different.

Seriously, how many "regular folks" are watching this thing? I'm watching because I'm a yellow dog Dem, and conventions are for the hardest of the hardcore party folks. Do you really think people vote based on how the convention goes? I say let McCain and Co. blow their load next week. We still have 2 whole months until people enter the voting booths - and based on the ground game both campaigns have in place, I'm feeling pretty good about things.

You seem to be saying that the Democrats are all attacking McCain instead of playing up Obama, which is bad.

Then the Republicans will use their convention to attack Obama instead of playing up McCain, which is good.

The real dynamic at play is that the GOP is putting on their show after the Democrats - after the supposedly legal date - which means that no matter what the Democrats do or say, they will be able to work from a position of strength.

Their plan of attack, however, is the same no matter what the Dems do: tear down Obama. The difference this year is that the Dems nominated the best political speaker in the country today, perhaps ever. Obama is able to give GOP partisan hacks chills down their spines - good and bad chills. Plus, Obama fights back, hard and intelligently.

I want the GOP convention to focus on Obama in the same way McCain's entire campaign is. We've done tremendous damage to McCain's brand the last few weeks, and especially the last few days. If the GOP doesn't spend their moment in the sun trying to repair it, that's going to be the ultimate takeaway from these two weeks.

One last thing: party of why the 2004 convention was so focused on lionizing Kerry was because he was so damned uninspiring. It wasn't done from a position of strength. Obama needs no such help.

"I don't disagree with any of Ezra's critiques of the convention, but I still don't feel any pessimism about Obama's chances. This is a change election"

I know we're all supposed to say "McSame", but if enough of the electorate decides that McCain actually isn't the same as Bush, then they can have a change election without electing Obama.

-----

All that said, I'd still bet on Obama at even money odds.

But the unspeakable awfulness of the Veep rollout shifted my Fair Value on the election downward from 67/33 to 60/40.

I believe the template for this election is 1976 where Carter badly lost the campaign, but still won the election because of just how favorable the environment was for Democrats.

And Obama seems determined to follow in Carter's footsteps by badly losing the campaign and hoping the Democratic tailwind carries him across the finish line.

I think the way to look at this is ask what, if anything, the McCain team feels it will need to address that's come out of the convention.

So far, there doesn't seem to be anything that's gained momentum within the convention that will have forced them to respond in the GOP convention. I think if we're fair, Clinton's speech in 2004 wasn't able to do that either.

Their best shot, IMO, is to make the case that McCain represents the past. There've been some hints of that so far, but we need much more than a few lines uttered on cable TV at 7pm. There needs to be a drumbeat.

Yeah, Kerry 04 had a theme all right. It was an off-putting, all war-hero, all the time affair that was tiresome from the moment he took the stage.

The Democratic Party was too unified for its own good, behind a candidate not enough Democrats really liked and too many Democrats thought could win.

I like the airing out of differences much better.

"I think the way to look at this is ask what, if anything, the McCain team feels it will need to address that's come out of the convention."

If the Team McCain can find a woman they can successfully put up as VP, they'll have addressed what came out of this convention in such a way that they'll likely win in November.

this set of comments is an interesting case history of how the dems eat their own: john kerry, a man eminently qualified to be a good president, is now goofus mcdoofus because 80K voters in ohio still trusted bush.

sheesh.

as for the convention, the idea of mcsame is really quite limiting: the real case to be made is that he's mcworse, not mcsame.

whether that case can be made remains to be seen....

as for young ezra: the 1968 convention was the most divisive of my lifetime (and i'm an old person). the southern strategy was in its first bloom. there was enormous hatred aimed at humphrey (including by my teenaged self) for his complicity in vietnam.

and he still almost won the thing.

just because you're sitting there is no reason to overstate the importance of conventions....

"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."

We clearly weren't listening to the same speech, esp. the part where she listed off a) all the problems of the last 8 years that inspired her to run as a Democrat in the first place, and b) when she listed all of McCain's views and his similarities to Bush.

You also obviously missed Schweitzer.

And what Petey said re: the post-partisan candidate and a coherent convention.

I think you're freaking out unnecessarily.

I agree with the commenters who say that lack of a theme is in and of itself no problem. If important points are being made and made effectively, there's no reason to insist that they form some sort of master narrative.

That said, I would feel much better if I knew that there was a substantial plan for going very negative on McCain. If all the undecided voters know is that McCain is a highly decorated former POW, we will lose, because anyone in the world would lose in that matchup.

And, per Josh Marshall, by "negative" I don't mean frothing at the mouth, I mean very seriously critical. For frack's sake, there's videotape of the man singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" (to pick just one awful moment). We should be drawing blood, and we are not.

Using the Bush/McCain hug photograph prolifically is a good start, but to win we probably need the votes of people who voted for Bush: we need to make the argument that McCain could well be even worse.

Howard, I agree that Kerry was qualified, and I'd vote for him again. Same goes for Dukakis (well, I wasn't old enough to vote for Dukakis), but that doesn't make either of them good candidates or well-run campaigns.

"as for the convention, the idea of mcsame is really quite limiting: the real case to be made is that he's mcworse, not mcsame."

Of course, this is likely to fail.

Bush has approval ratings in the low 30's. McCain has approval ratings in the high 50's.

The electorate thinks he's mcbetter.

-----

The electorate wants a Democrat, so you win the election by giving them a Democrat. Unfortunately, Team Chicago has decided to give them a "post-partisan" instead.

It's interesting to me that the last time the electorate wanted a Democrat as badly as they do this year was 1976. And that's the last time before this year that we nominated a "post-partisan" instead of a Democrat.

And because of that, '76 was close when it should've been a blowout, just like this year is shaping up to be close when it should be a blowout.

I don't understand what is going on. Hillary Clinton's speech was good. I think the media's spin of it has been really atrocious. But every speaker has a different agenda, and nobody seems to understand what they are all there for other then to hold hands and act nice to each other. I understand post-partisan rhetoric to the extent that you don't want to lock your opposition into a place where they feel permanently isolated from you. But at a party convention? Its unbelievable. This is the time to rip the other guy. If all your going to do at your PARTY CONVENTION is talk about bi-partisanship, why have party conventions at all? You know what the best way to make a connection with someone you don't know or are just getting to know? Find someone that you both mutually dislike and talk about why you dislike them. This often applies to basic aspects of human communication (making a connection with another person, by discovering a shared hatred for Harry Potter) but it is almost certainly necessary to establishing political unification. A particularly good example is the Republican Party six months ago! They were seriously divided at the beginning of this year. They came together, not by holding hands and talking about how much they liked each other, but by recognizing their mutual dislike of the opposition. Why is that so complicated for democrats?

I'm with you Ezra. I've been watching at home tearing my hair out. I've been a major Obama supporter this whole time, and this is really making me question his political instincts and those of his campaign. These speeches are approved by his campaign staff aren't they? I mean he's the one in charge of all this. Why does it feel like each speaker's message is in isolation to all the other speakers? Warner gets up and talks about accepting good ideas regardless of party affiliation only to have Hillary Clinton deliver a great speech--but which said basically the exact opposite--Republicans need to be brought down.

This convention was a chance to define McCain. Instead, the democratic party is accepting the GOP and media narrative that the election is a referendum on Barack Obama. If its all about Obama, he will lose. No candidate can win the presidency of a country as large as the United States by having the election be about their character/personality etc. A significant reason why character attacks work is that there is a natural disconnect between the immense responsibility and power of the presidential office, and the inevitable mortal limitations of the human beings who seek to occupy this role. This is only emphasized by the enormity of the U.S. where it is impossible for a candidate to get true face time with anything for than a sliver of the electorate. Furthermore, and in all fairness, Obama's resume is not that thick and this doesn't help. That is why Obama's candidacy--and this election!--has to be about more than just him. It doesn't matter how charismatic he is or how likeable. He's still a man and the more the GOP is able to point this out and Obama accept it, the better chance McCain has of winning. Not because McCain is superhuman. But because no one is forcing McCain under a similar microscope. There is something else Obama can do. He too can emphasize the immense responsibility and power of the presidential office. And he can hammer home the fact that such power in the hands of a tempermental and aggressive militarist like McCain is a genuine threat to American security and embodies the same characteristics that got us into Iraq: an inability to see the global environment with any sort of nuance or complexity. In fact, McCain just released an ad today with ominous music, arguing the same thing about Obama--that his presidency would endanger national security. In other words, Obama needs to freak people out about McCain more, not just because it gets the focus off of himself, but because there are positions that McCain holds which are legitimately scary.

I have always liked Obama because although he speaks with post-partisan rhetoric, he's not naive about politics and he knows that sometimes you have to get down in the mud. He's pragmatic. But this convention is really making me wonder. Does he really think he can win without attacking John McCain in a way that produces a visceral reaction against McCain from undecided voters? Does he really believe that the politics of fear is so completely evil that it should never be used, that even when such concerns (such as McCain's bellicose understanding of our place in the global community) are legitimate and should be raised with the American people? I don't think Obama is consciously this naive. I think he knows that a lot of Americans are...well, impressionable. But I have to ask: What purpose did he think this convention would serve? Did he really think that its main purpose was to reassure voters about him? If so, it betrays a dangerous willingness to play defense at a time when the game is far from over. In a way, Obama has been doing this ever since he became the presumptive nominee. But I thought that the convention would be when the pivot happened. When he started ripping into McCain, and everyone else in the party doing the same. But its not happening, and ultimately, the buck stops with him. Its his party now. I campaigned for this man in New Hampshire before the primary, in New York, in Baltimore, and in Pennsylvania. And now I'm starting to feel like Jimmy McNulty at the end of the first season in "The Wire": 'What the f*ck did I do?'

That he's an American with a recognizable history of growing up in a place and doing some stuff and loving his family

I think this is a case of letting your opponents frame the debate, which is always dangerous. Why do you need to act like you have something to prove, if you don't?

In the end, I doubt folks dubious about Obama are really thinking, "Well, I would vote for him, I'm just not sure if he loves his family or not." Healthcare, Iraq, hammer McCain. Rinse, lather, repeat.

One of the problems I saw with the 2004 convention was that Bill Clinton gave an excellent speech. Not just thematically, but in terms of delivery--he was dead on. Obama gave a great speech. By comparison, Kerry reported for duty to be tedious, dray, flat and uninspiring. I thought Carter's speech, while doing a good job of attacking the opposition, felt a little weird and overly-hostile, but that may just be my personal bias. Still, I think the difference between the dynamic, on-topic Bill Clinton and the dry, boring, cliche-ridden Kerry could not have been more obvious (not to mention the contrast between then unknown Obama ndd Kerry), and I suspect it hurt him. Obama isn't going to have that problem. Indeed, what the convention may need is more Obama and less everybody else.

I'm with most of the people in this thread. Yeah, the convention has been free of "fireworks" so far, but I think I can see the strategy behind it. If everyone came out breathing fire, shouting McSame and Chimpy McHalliburton, it feeds into the whole "Democrats taken over by the fringe" meme (which is ridiculous, but potent). I think they're taking this rare opportunity to essentially re-introduce the Democratic brand to the country. After almost two generations of being branded effette cowards and out of the mainstream, it seems like the theme of this convention (so far, anyway) has been, "We're just like you." Not "We're just like Republicans...only better." Obama is in a very good position, poll and indicator-wise, but he needs to seal the deal, and not just for his presidency, but for the downticket races. Making the entire convention a long attack on McCain doesn't actually do much for the Democratic brand in the short term or the long. I think the important thing is where it winds up and what larger themes it lays about being a Democrat are the important parts.

The other point to make is that unless McCain picks...I don't know, Batman as his running mate, I doubt he'll see any particular bump out of that announcement, and certainly not one that will effect Obama's. Why else do you think he's talking about moving his announcement to Thursday night?

Petey's rubbing his chubby right now at the prospect of a McCain victory delivering him an InTrade profit of $7.60. That's big money to him in the looneybin.

In the real world:

- about 12 million people are getting to see one and a half speeches talked all over in the 10pm hour (remember, Obama's keynote never even got to the networks live in 2004)
- about 8 million on the cabloids are getting three and a half speeches talked all over
- perhaps half as many are seeing either the whole thing on C-SPAN or a bastardised version on PBS.

Now, if the activists go away from Denver feeling shit, that's clearly a problem. The media? They filed their stories over the weekend to ensure more drinking time.

What you can take from this? If you're in St Paul next week, carry a Ron Paul sign and hang out near the cabloids, because they'll treat all 15 of you as if you're a mass movement.

I'm feeling a bit pessimistic at the moment too, but a couple of counter points (both to Ezra's post and some commenters.)

One, I was well into my political junky stage back in 2004, and I do not remember the convention having a clear theme. I believe that it did, but, apparently, it wasn't salient enough to be seared into my psyche.

I do remember that the Kerry campaign seemed to have no clear lines of attack against Bush. I vaguely recall reading an anectode in a campaign post-mortem where a heavyweight Democratic advisor was speaking to the Kerry campaign. They listed a bunch of possible lines of attack on a white board, and pleaded with the Kerry campaign to pick one or two and go with them instead of using the scattershot approach they had utilized up until that point. The Kerry campaign never took this advice.

By contrast, the Obama campagin has two clear lines of attack agains McCain. One is the McSame argument. The second is the "out of touch" argument. These strike me as potentially very effective.

Second, there's no reason to believe that this year should be a blowout. The Democrats have an advantage, but not a huge one. While McCain is a member of the incumbent party, he is not the incumbent. And while the economy is not doing well, it is not doing as badly as it could be. Additionally, the Democratic nominee is a black guy named Barack Obama. 5 years ago I would have thought that to be electoral suicide. The best predictive models peg this race as a close one. See Brendan Nyhan for more here.

Personally, I'd suggest that the convention is doing what it needs to - unifying the party, presenting a wholesome, non-partisan and friendly image to America. You underestimate how the Obama campaign's determination to run as an adult is impressing Republicans and independents, many of whom are embarrassed by McCain's descent into slime, and are remembering why they always had trouble trusting him. That matters, and combined with a good ground game will bring Obama a solid win in the fall.

the Obama campaign's determination to run as an adult

If this is true, the Democrats are absolutely screwed.

The only thing people remember long term about conventions are specific speeches and moments. It doesn't matter how well themes are planned for each night, what gets covered and remembered are the memorable speeches and moments.

Out of '92, we had Gore's attack dog VP speech and Clinton's man from Hope schtick and both of them happened on the last two nights. I can't even recall the first two nights of that convention. Same with '96. All anyone talked about in 2000 was the kiss that Gore laid on his wife and in 2004 it was Obama's speech and Kerry's reporting for duty.

Out of this convention so far we've had four memorable speeches (Kennedy, Michelle, Schweitzer and Hillary) two which were heart warming and two which ripped McCain.

All the majority of electorate will hear about is the highlights and the zingers and just from those four speeches there has been plenty of good press. Michelle humanized Barack while Kennedy reminded the party of its storied history. Schweitzer wound the crowd up and knocked McCain around while Hillary delivered the best speech I have ever heard her give.

And we haven't even gotten to the VP and Presidential nominees yet! Or the Big Dog! And all of them are kickass speechmakers.

Calm down for heaven's sake.

"I campaigned for this man in New Hampshire before the primary, in New York, in Baltimore, and in Pennsylvania. And now I'm starting to feel like Jimmy McNulty at the end of the first season in "The Wire": 'What the f*ck did I do?"

You went with personality over ideology, which is always a bad bet in politics.

And if Obama wins in November, you're going to end up feeling McNulty in season five...

I wonder if part of the problem is that nobody really speaks better about Obama than Obama himself? Unlike many I've thought there was plenty of attacking McCain and for those wanting more attacks against Bush/Cheney, that will come tonight since the theme is foreign policy. There's been plenty of praise for Obama but he's one of the best orators this country has seen in a long time, so it's hard to top Obama on how effective his campaign and his Presidency will be. My only complaint so far is there hasn't been enough Democratic policies are better than Republican ones, we've seen some but not enough of that in my view.

And yes, Warner and Warner's speech were a dud.

Ezra,

You have been eaten by the trolls. You are too close to the MSM infection. As a result, you are becoming a carrier. Snap out of it, man!

The Republicans are well qualified to shoot their own feet off even as they shoot off their mouths. Stay alert, stay awake, stay strong.

If you hear the dogs, keep going.

"My only complaint so far is there hasn't been enough Democratic policies are better than Republican ones"

Again, if you nominate a "post-partisan" candidate...

"Post-Partisan" is the new "trust fund scumbag"! Pretty soon, though, I'll wear that out and need a new short phrase to type in every single post.

Agree with Redstar, you aren't watching the same convention I am. The only thing I think they are lacking on is having the keynote and important speakers be so late in the night. Ezra, you sound like the people still clamoring that you don't know what Obama stands for. Sheesh.

What is this convention arguing? What is it arguing about Barack Obama?

How many times have you heard health care, women's right, end to the Iraq War? Did you see any of Schweizter's speech?

That he's an American with a recognizable history of growing up in a place and doing some stuff and loving his family?

I hope you don't mean to suggest that Michelle Obama should be an attack dog?

What will anyone remember from the first two days of this convention?

Are they really even supposed to remember anything? Obama is going to wipe the floor on Thursday night. Thats all we need.

We've done tremendous damage to McCain's brand the last few weeks, and especially the last few days.

No we haven't. The seven houses thing is a sideshow that nobody will remember in two months, and the incessant focus on it at the convention is kind of embarrassing. This is the best we've got, he's not sure how many houses he owns? If we can't come up with more cogent lines of attack for the four nights when we've got the most people watching, we deserve to lose.

Ezra, I share some of your complaints about this convention, but I think you're giving to much credit to the 2004 convention.

It was well crafted, and the first two nights were great. You had an amazing speech by Bill Clinton on the first night, and an amazing speech by Barack Obama on the second night.

But you seem to be forgetting the next two nights: night three was one of Edwards' weaker renditions of his two Americas stump speech, and night four was: "John Kerry, reporting for duty!" Night 3 was a mild disappointment and night 4 focused things on Vietnam (ugh) and experience (against an incumbent!)

Meanwhile, if the convention hasn't been especially on-theme, we've still had a very strong introduction from Michelle, a brilliant speech by HRC, and we've got a bulldog of an attack dog for night 3 and one of the best public speeches of our times for night 4.

I really think, when taken as a whole, this convention's going to come out ahead of 2004's.

Don't fret. We're coming to the heart of the batting order.

They need to talk about the Iraq War. Seriously talk. The GOP is salivating over the Dems lack of attention to this area and they'd be right too. Hard to believe the Dems can so consistently fuck shit up.

Warner over Kucinich? Ugh.

"Pretty soon, though, I'll wear (post-partisan) out and need a new short phrase to type in every single post."

Meh.

I seriously doubt it's going to wear out. It seems to be pretty central to what is happening in the politics of this election.

And it's been the DNA of Obama's career since '04.

And unlike the other phrase you mention, attaching "post-partisan" to Obama is not my coinage. It's something his own team did quite on purpose. If you think it's an insult, you ought to look toward Chicago, not toward me.

I'm 'post-coherent'!

Ezra...You know...You really need to be sedated at this point...You are totally out of control...Just what is the problem?

Where to begin?
First, McCain's VP pick isn't going to strangle anything --- except maybe himself...Crist, Leiberman, Palwenty, or Romney as choices are absolute disasters --- total gifts to the Democrats...The joke is that he HAS to make a choice...On top of that, his convention starts Labor Day (how studpid is that?)

Second, how much of a convention can the average persuadable american be expected to take every night...maybe one or two things...They got Teddy and Michelle on Monday and Hillary on Tuesday, they'll get Bill and Joe tonight and BHO on Thursday --- that's just about all that the american public can digest anyway...

Third, he only needs to take Kerry's states (how tough is that?), Iowa, and New Mexico to get to 264 ---- all he needs is one of Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, or Florida (a tie w/ Nevada)...

Why are you in such a panic --- you're acting like an immature little boy...

You make some good points, but (a) I imagine both conventions will have relatively small bounces this year, with Obama's being somewhat limited by his race, by the enormous attention he has already received and by the Republican convention starting right after Obama's end.

(b) The biggest takeaways, as others have pointed out, are going to be the major speeches. If Obama hits it out of the park, that's going to be well worth a few points.

(c) I *highly* doubt McCain will get a bounce out of his VP pick. If it's Pawlenty or Portman, he picks someone people feel neutral about, and there's no bounce. With Romney, I half expect a *negative* bounce. So far, it looks like he's leaning towards Romney, which should make all of us smile a little.

You went with personality over ideology, which is always a bad bet in politics.

You're doing the exact same thing, Petey, just from a negative perspective rather than a positive one.

I think you are over analyzing. The point of the first 2 days was simple and was met. The convention is an introduction of the Democratic ticket to voters- undecided voters, not obssessives. The point of Day One was tribute to Kennedy and intro to Michelle Obama and the Obama family. The point of Day Two was to beat up on McCain and showcase Hillary's support. I just talked to someone at work who said she watched and enjoyed both nights and was especially interested in
Michelle's speech. And enjoyed the kids. Simple. Quit overanalyzing.

Poor Democrats... Such a bunch of nervous nellies and defeatists. It's no wonder that so few in the general public are willing to vote for us to run the country. I thank GOD every day for Barack and his camp and their cool in the face of the worrywarts of the establishment Democratic party. So sad to see.

Seems to me Obama's team had two issues they had to resolve, and resolve early. One, get Michelle out there to warm viewers up to her personality (and help bring more Clinton women into the flock), and two, get Hillary out there to push her supporters towards Obama. Viewing this from a major TV network perspective (not cable with their wall to wall coverage), that's all they've had time for thus far.

The convention is way less important than what the candidates, the party and the activists do coming out of it. If they (we) got charged up by the experience, it will be a good thing. If they blithely all sail on and do not work their butts off (see 2004) after the convention, they are in trouble.

And let's recall that McSame is about a million times less effective as a campaigner than W ever was -- and his knock-off Rovians are nowhere near as good at hate as ol' Karl....

I know all the bloggers we read are at the convention (and the ones who aren't are watching it), so naturally they are going to talk about the convention...but, HONESTLY -- is it really that important? What about all the ground game stuff people have been talking about for months? What about the amazing fundraising? What about the unprecedented increase in voter turnout for the primaries? (I haven't heard about that in forever.) Are all those staffers in all fifty states, all those new voters, going to forget the whole thing because of the convention? Anyway, wasn't Ezra (or was it Ygelsias?) the one arguing that what really mattered in the election were the underlying fundamentals of the economy, and civil liberties, and so on, ad infinitum?

Look, we've known for months that the media will be criminally stupid about this election. That's what going on at the convention. But the people who decide this election, those thousands or ten of thousands of votes at the margin between 49% and 51%...honestly, how many of them are watching the freaking convention? And they're watching Tweety and Wolf, not the speakers, anyway. We've known all the time that that's what they'd be watching.

Oh, and by the way...someone above pointed out that McCain's VP choise isn't going to move anything, and I completely agree. What a bunch of lame suits he has to choose from. I can't wait for Biden to eviscerate whichever it is in the debate.

Enough with the freaking out. What appeals to you necessarily does not appeal to "regular people" and vice versa. I think they are doing a great job so far. Day 1 - tug at their hearts (it's called emotional branding)
Day 2 - Democrats unify against mccain
Day 3 - McCain is dangerous and Obama is more than just ready to lead
Day 4 - Wrap it all up nicely - electing Obama is the change we need.
Be positive and if you are still pessimistic, make some phone calls, register some voters and do campaigning.

Good grief, I've been reading all over the blogs all these type A personality testosterone laden young men typing as fast as they can *we're not keeping up in the food fight*.

Calm down. Obama has to reassure the nation that voting for a young black man is not too outside the box. Michelle had to show the nation she's not toting an AK under her dress. And they both had to do that while the Clintons insist on all the cameras look at them at all times.

This convention is more about the changing party leadership than it is about the general. Obama was forced to get completely past the primary before he'd be able to move on to the general. This is about showing homage to the Kennedy leadership about to fade from sight and homage to the perceived leadership of the Clintons and then Thursday moving the whole sheebang to a newer, bigger and more forward leaning one night convention of his own leadership.

Stop reacting to the Reps and their stoogy, old school ways of doing our politics and pay attention to how Obama is trying to transition his party and this country past the old ways of, at the very least, the way we elect our leaders.

Calm down and see it for what it is...a huge undertaking of defeating the Clintons, McCain, the smear machines AND the media fascination of the gossip sheet ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

For a rookie, he's doing a hell of a job.

"You're doing the exact same thing, Petey, just from a negative perspective rather than a positive one."

I like Obama's personality.

I liked his '04 convention speech. I saw him speak in person in '07 and liked it. If someone to his left like Clinton had been the nominee, I would've wanted him as VP.

I just really don't like his politics in the context of being the Democratic standard-bearer.

The things is Obama needs several things out of the convention. He needs to come across as regular guy and all American: 1st night. He needs to bring in the majority of Clinton holdouts, who are 50% of undecideds according to Chuck Todd, 2nd night. He needs to make a strong case that McCain is Bush amplified: 3rd night (hopefully). He needs to seal the deal himself: that we can hit restart after the past 8 years and solve our problems with a more modern approach: 4th night.

I think if he went after McCain from day one, as Ezra wants, we'd still have the Clinton holdout problem, and not have addressed the "not one of us" smears. My only agreement is that I'd have preferred Clinton to take it to McCain a bit more. But the narrative is there: McCain = Bush = last 8 years. Obama = non-threatening, safe choice to let everyday Americans take back the country.

Ezra et al, please try and calm yourselves. Citing to the 2004 Convention as the model is hardly a convincing argument, not only because it resulted in the re-installment of the Worst President in the History of the United States, but because in many respects, Kerry is the antithesis of Obama, so the same dynamics do not control. Party loyalists want the red meat, which is largely and truly wasted on the rest of the country, including the great waiting and watching center. They need to be treated with respect, rather than having their intelligences insulted by a long, screeching string of self-congratulatory anti-McCain screeds.

Media types loved the 1992 Republican Convention the bestus, because it was run like a week-long Bundist rally, and featured a deranged Pat Buchanan exhorting a bunch of rich, soft and pudgy white guys to "mount up and ride to the sound of the gunfire!"
Great and satisfying theater, but disastrous politics.

This Convention will rise or fall on the headliner, period. But even still, so far Michelle Obama crossed an important barrier and the Clinton menace has been broken and bridled to good purpose. Not a bad start. Now comes the more important part. The keynote stuff is more for the political junkies and handicappers anyway, sort of like the Juvenile in the Breeders Cup, to let the rail-birds start to lay out some long-range odds for a few cycles down the track.

Obama will speak on Thursday, and I have a hunch it will be worth listening to, far beyond this frightened-kitten act and the smart-ass cracks about the stadium set. Its not about the props or the stage or the warm-up acts.

Third, he only needs to take Kerry's states (how tough is that?), Iowa, and New Mexico to get to 264 ---- all he needs is one of Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, or Florida (a tie w/ Nevada)

Isn't this another way of saying: if a lot of things break Obama's way, he'll win? No kidding.

Keeping all of Kerry's states is not a guarantee. He's having trouble in Michigan, for instance. Iowa and NM he might get. And in all the other states you mention, he's behind.

So yeah, if he holds the Kerry states, flips a few swing states, and then turns a big red state blue, he'll win. The problem is it is looking less likely that he can do all of that.

If anyone feels that the Democratic Convention lacks punch, think about how the Republicans will deal with the possibility that their convention will coincide with the landfall of a Category 4 or 5 Hurricane in Houston, Mobile, or (as a, gulp, New Orleans resident), New Orleans.

"the Clinton menace has been broken and bridled to good purpose. Not a bad start."

The fact that you anti-Democrats think beating Clinton is more important than beating the GOP is precisely why November is in doubt in the best Democratic year in over three decades.

Like lots of others here, I agree with this post. I don't understand why the Obama campaign, normally so thoughtful and organized, can't get its act together on this. Each night has failed to convey a message; he two nights taken together has failed to convey a message; and many of the speeches have failed to convey a clear message. I want to hear attack after attack: McCain is the same over and over. Hell, I think they should get a flip-flop chant going on McCain.

My only hope is that this type of thing plays better in 2008 than it did in 2004 and the inevitable Republican onslaught next week plays poorly in 2008, failing to engage indpendents/undecided voters. (I assume that's who the GOP is going for since McCain already has the support of almost 90% of Republicans.) I mean, Rudy Guliani giving an attack speech now does seem kind of preposterous.

I just really don't like his politics in the context of being the Democratic standard-bearer.

I don't like the fact that Monta Ellis is out for four months. But I accept it, because I'm willing to deal with reality.

Your objections have been noted. Come January, I expect you to be putting pressure on Obama to move to the left. I'll be right there alongside you.

But right now, we have an election to win. Let's act like grownups, deal with what we have, and focus our efforts in a productive direction.

I'm not a member of any organized party; I'm a Democrat.

Keeping all of Kerry's states is not a guarantee. He's having trouble in Michigan, for instance. Iowa and NM he might get. And in all the other states you mention, he's behind.

Where are you getting your info?

Remember, Kerry only won 19 states. According to Pollster, Obama is only behind in Florida, Missouri and Nevada...none of which Kerry won anyway.

Check out the state by state graphs and see which candidate is trending which way in which states. You'll be better informed.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/va/08-va-pres-ge-mvo.php

"I don't like the fact that Monta Ellis is out for four months. But I accept it, because I'm willing to deal with reality."

Jesus. My condolences. I haven't been following the news during the convention. Lottery for sure by the Bay. The cat can ball.

But on the bright side, my Nuggets have a better shot at snagging a playoff spot sans Camby.

"But right now, we have an election to win."

See, that's the problem with the post-partisan schtick. I'm a Democrat. I'm not sure I'm part of that "we".

Maybe I'll feel differently in a month. I may end up voting for Obama sheerly on racial and SCOTUS grounds. But at the moment, I don't see an Obama victory as being, on balance, any more helpful than it is destructive.

Your mileage may vary. I'm not telling folks not to vote for Obama. I'm just saying that I don't see an Obama vote as being something compelling, given his reluctance to be a Democrat.

In an election with low consequentiality, I don't see the problem in punishing a candidate who is so bizarrely eager to distance himself from my Party.

oh rly

Petey, you left the Democratic party. You're a leftist, perhaps, but you're not a Democrat. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, John Edwards is a Democrat, and Barack Obama is a Democrat. You are a trouble-making Naderist.

to the OMG1!!1!! The Sky is FALLING!!!! Retards. Republicans didn't act like this when they spent most of 2004 with Bush only 1~4 points ahead in the polls, and we shouldn't either. Not only are we good on state polls, we are actually winning in the National polls and always have been. Stop listening to the corporate press that just wants to demoralize us. Stop being the pathetic losers the Republicans always say we are. Stiffen your fucking spines, keep working, and we will win this thing. Have a little confidence, nobody wants to be led by a party of losers.

to the OMG1!!1!! The Sky is FALLING!!!! Retards. Republicans didn't act like this when they spent most of 2004 with Bush only 1~4 points ahead in the polls, and we shouldn't either. Not only are we good on state polls, we are actually winning in the National polls and always have been. Stop listening to the corporate press that just wants to demoralize us. Stop being the pathetic losers the Republicans always say we are. Stiffen your fucking spines, keep working, and we will win this thing. Have a little confidence, nobody wants to be led by a party of losers.

Hear hear!

The problem with the speeches is time after time they are telling, not showing. Every speaker tells us that they will improve the treatment of our returning soldiers, without showing (in words) us how bad things have gotten under republican rule. There's no examples to drive home how badly everything had been wrecked. They aren't hitting specific policies that have brought us here.

Also, the networks are absolutely intent on not commenting about anyone but the headliners. The opening acts are getting no love, and their attacks are falling deaf to only those watching CSPAN. Be sure that next week the networks will cut to the floor for every speech by every one of the PUMA put on stage.

And just to add:

"Come January, I expect you to be putting pressure on Obama to move to the left. I'll be right there alongside you."

Come January, if Obama wins, there will be zero leverage to put pressure on Obama from the left. You ought to know that.

Again, the last Democrat to run for the WH by declaring himself separate from the Party was Jimmy Carter. Once in office, Carter was so immune from pressure from the left that Teddy Kennedy had to primary his ass.

And as a point of reference, Carter left office with higher approval ratings from Republicans than from Democrats. Imagine.

That's where "post-partisan" gets you.

I mean, seriously, if Obama isn't going to even ask for my vote, what's the rationale for my voting for him?

In an election with low consequentiality, I don't see the problem in punishing a candidate who is so bizarrely eager to distance himself from my Party.

Yeah, who cares who controls the bureaucracy. It's not like the Republicans would be willing to staff it with out and out hacks completely indentured to every industry with a big wallet in addition to Christian fundies! Oh wait.

Let me try again. Who cares who controls the White House, because I'm sure John McCain will nominate good honest moderates or liberals to the Supreme Court should there be an opening that could swing the whole shebang one way or another....OH wait!

Let me try once more. Who cares who is President, surely a Democratic Congress will have no trouble convincing John McCain to sign the health care bill it has created...Oh wait!

Ok, one final time. Who cares who is President, I'm sure John McCain won't push us headlong into some foolish foreign adventure, like with Russia or North Korea or something...Dang. Foiled again by the fact that it does matter a lot who is in the white house this year, that this election is of consequence. Dang those facts. Dang that reality.

Political insiders hugely overestimate how much conventions matter. I've been a moderately engaged voter for the last 30 years, with my interest ebbing and flowing. I'm sure I've watched a bunch of convention speeches, though with much less interest once conventions became overly programmed infomercials for the parties. You don't need a catalogue of what I remember: suffice it to say that it's remarkably little. Really. Cuomo's key note got good press. Clinton's key note was too long. "Spit balls". Kerry looking like an idiot. I can't remember anything from any of Reagan's conventions. I don't remember anything from Clinton's conventions. Don't remember anything from 2000. Am sure that my vote has never been changed by anything that happens at a convention.

So chill out. Michelle did great. The kids were charming. Hillary did what she needed to do. Out there in the land of people who are paying attention only intermittently, those are good impressions to have hanging out there.

They've already decided how they feel about how things are going. And if the election hasn't already broken wide open for Barack the only reason is because voters are unsure of him. The convention is putting out images that can help answer that. The debates should finish it off.

It would still be a large mistake to buy McCain on Intrade.

I like the airing out of differences much better.

A Festivus for the rest of us!

Seriously folks, chill. Or I'll have to pin you three times.

One other thing: the Republicans have no easy path for them at their convention. They can't come across as Republican. And if they ignore the issues and attack Obama, they end up looking like Republicans any way. Seriously, these guys are hoping that hurricane draws attention away from them.

Message Day 1: Obama is normal, not an evil Commie-muslim. Grade: A.

Message Day 2:i)
John McCain=George W. Bush. Grade: Solid B.
ii) Hillary sez: If you voted for me, vote for Obama.
Grade: A.

Damn, Ezra, you freak out way too easily, scarred from 2000 and 2004. And the scars are there for me too, I admit it--most of us. But you've forgotten about the ground game.

Jeebus--the only questionable Kerry state for Obama is Michigan. he'll get everything else, and Iowa's his. Basically, Obama needs 1-2 swing states to drop his way. McCain needs to go 6 for 6. I like our odds better.

Petey: Turn on your TV. Watch the roll call vote. Watch the Delegates. Many of their hearts are broken, many of them wish they could be nominating Hillary Clinton right now. Watch them swallow hard and do what they think is right. They have put more into HRC's campaign than you could ever dream of. Understandably, many of them are still voting for HRC. But they are not making fools of themselves. They are not screaming that Obama doesn't belong here. They have class. They have loyalty. They have decency.

Now go back, and read the things you've written. Understand the damage you're doing, not only to the party and to Obama, but to HRC's future. 2016 only feels like a long way off, and Hillary could easily lead the field then. If you really care about this party, about HRC, and about the working class people you're always writing about, all you have to do is stop commenting. Stop making needless trouble. The doors over there. Be the man you could be and walk out it.

I really don't get the quasi-religious fervor you see in liberal blogger comment sections. Petey's not a brilliant guy; I suppose if you took it upon yourself to read each and every one of his hundreds of comments, he could get a little annoying. But it's lunacy to talk of the "damage [he's] doing, not only to the party and to Obama, but to HRC's future," and the "needless trouble" he's making. He's just a solitary voter with a negligible online presence. Personally, I suspect he may be proven right about Obama's unfitness for a general election campaign, but that's neither here nor there. Even if he's entirely wrong, his voicing his opinion can't hurt anything. If there's anyone who, by their mere comments on political blogs, is somehow managing to hurt the Dems' chances, it's the people who treat Obama like some sort of demigod and his election like a life-and-death matter, thereby sullying the Obama brand by association and alienating saner voters.

"Petey's not a brilliant guy"

Don't you understand the damage you're doing when you question my brilliance?

"Personally, I suspect he may be proven right about Obama's unfitness for a general election campaign"

If all I was worried about was his unfitness for the general election campaign, I would've become a supporter in June. There's no shame in fighting a losing battle.

My real worry is that he's going to be a nightmare for the progressive movement if he wins.

Given Petey's cult of Edwards personality, and how well that worked out, I move that the adults in the room should simply ignore his tedious and ill-informed rants. Every time you read his pontifications, just mutter the phrase "Rielle Hunter". This magic invocation will dispel Petey babble in your mind and enable you to think like a rational human being.

So, Petey, when do you get your magic PUMA decoder ring?

Why do I get the impression that the progressive movement according to the Gospel of Petey consists of just one member? Not a great basis for a political movement, but it does produce lots of accidental comedy.

In an election with low consequentiality, I don't see the problem in punishing a candidate who is so bizarrely eager to distance himself from my Party.

Unless that candidate is Joe Lieberman.

"Unless that candidate is Joe Lieberman."

I supported Lamont in the general.

I actually feel that my having supported Lieberman in the primary is some evidence of my prescience.

My oft-expressed worry was that if Lamont won the primary, Lieberman would almost definitely win the general and then become a long-term thorn for Democrats. I think that's all ended up coming true, no?

""So, Petey, when do you get your magic PUMA decoder ring?"

Jose Rivera is giving me one."

> Meh.
>
> I seriously doubt it's going
> to wear out. It seems to be
> pretty central to what is
> happening in the politics of
> this election.
> Petey

"I find it freakishly easy to line out the politics" - Peter posting on Yglesias' blog (3 versions previous to the current one).

How'd that work out for Edwards?

Cranky

Ezra says:
in 2004, Bill Clinton delivered an extraordinary thematic address that set the stage for the rest of the week. It's worth reproducing here:

*********************

surprise, surprise...fast forward to 2008 and once again Bill Clinton to the rescue to provide a theme on the 3rd night of Obama's convention...

I know people here will not like this...but do you want to know what the real problem is with the Obama camp??

they think they have already won the election...yeah, they believe they have already won this thing...so they are coasting a bit...

Hey pals, I've got news for you. We've been force fed this political crap through 18 months of primaries. If you dont know who John McCain or Barrack Obama are, you live on another planet. Conventions are for hacks. Get them over already. Its time for the serious debate between the TWO candidates. And to the rest of you squabling political know-it-all hacks.....Please shut the fuck up already!!!

This is a change election

The voters want to know - what direction? What is going to be changed?

BTW the performance of the Obots on Milt Rosenberg (WGN) last night was just amazing. Not pretty or informative. Just - don't say bad things about our Messiah's associations.

to the OMG1!!1!! The Sky is FALLING!!!! Retards. Republicans didn't act like this when they spent most of 2004 with Bush only 1~4 points ahead in the polls, and we shouldn't either. Not only are we good on state polls, we are actually winning in the National polls and always have been. Stop listening to the corporate press that just wants to demoralize us. Stop being the pathetic losers the Republicans always say we are. Stiffen your fucking spines, keep working, and we will win this thing. Have a little confidence, nobody wants to be led by a party of losers.

Obama is running 1 to 4 points behind where Kerry was at this time and so far there is no convention bounce.

And the effort to tie Obama to Communists has only begun in earnest.

America is a center right country according to Pew (not a right wing org). McCain is center right. Obama is hard left. Well OK he is Progressive (translation - hard left).

He doesn't do well without a teleprompter. And he has all those ugly Chicago Machine connection (Rezko a prime example - who will be sentenced about a week before the election). The heavy stuff has been held back until his coronation.

Did I mention ACORN (with all its voter fraud) connections? The Gammliel Foundation? etc.

Have faith brothers and sisters. The numbers in Nov. will be worse than Kerry's.

To summarize Petey: Real Democrats are going to vote for Republican John McCain because Obama isn't enough of a Dem party loyalist.

Petey: if you're going to be completely unrestrained by logic and common sense, why not be at least interesting? Why choose to always be wrong?

Serious question.

I vaguely recall reading an anectode in a campaign post-mortem where a heavyweight Democratic advisor was speaking to the Kerry campaign. They listed a bunch of possible lines of attack on a white board, and pleaded with the Kerry campaign to pick one or two and go with them instead of using the scattershot approach they had utilized up until that point. The Kerry campaign never took this advice.