Mark Warner to Give DNC Keynote Speech

Sen. Hillary Clinton will be one of four speakers on Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention.

The convention keynote speaker, who will also be speaking Tuesday, has just been announced. It's former Governor Mark Warner.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival during the Democratic presidential primaries, is also scheduled to speak that night, Aug. 26. But Warner is being given the plum position, according to an e-mail that Obama campaign adviser Mike Henry sent to Virginia supporters late Tuesday.

Other newly announced speakers: Michelle Obama's brother will introduce her on Monday night. Nancy Pelosi, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, will also speak Monday.

Each night has a theme: [More...]

The opening night theme is "One Nation." The Tuesday night theme is "Renewing America's Promise," while Wednesday's is "Securing America's Future," with an acceptance speech by Obama's still-unannounced vice presidential candidate.

The theme for Aug. 28, the night Obama formally accepts the nomination at the Denver Broncos' football stadium, is "Change You Can Believe In." Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter will be among speakers that night.


< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Could Gen. Wesley Clark Be the Veep Pick? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It seems like they are trying to (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:41:27 AM EST
    isolate Hillary as much as possible. Am I misreading this?

    I would say "minimize" (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by Makarov on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:16:35 AM EST
    not isolate. Which is pretty much a joke, because her speech and Bill's on Wed are going to be the ones most Democrats tune in to watch.

    As if it wasnt clear enough.. (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:41:44 AM EST
    that they view November as just a formality. Way to unite the party guys. Let Hillary speak, and then overshadowed by the Key Note speaker. Let Bill speak, and then overshadowed by the VP. At least they havent lost sight of the side goal, death to the Clinton wing of the party.

    Yep! It is probably because that (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
    presidency was so horrible.  We all know we don't want that AGAIN.

    Perhaps "minimize" (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:00:28 AM EST
    is a better word, but I still cannot escape the sense that, as Chisoxy says:

    "Let Hillary speak, and then overshadow [her with] the Key Note speaker. Let Bill speak, and then overshadow [him with] the VP. At least they havent lost sight of the side goal, death to the Clinton wing of the party."

    Obama is, if anything, highly strategic. I have really grown to appreciate his strategic skills. What concerns me is that he is not open and forthright about his policies. I am left to scramble for them. And the deeper my research into his ideas gets, the more I become convinced that they are not in the best interest of the American people or the international community.


    minimize? so if they pick one of the (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    current projected veeps, that will overshadow bill clinton? silibus? bayh? please! i'd have to drink a pot of coffee to stay awake while they try the best they can to put me back to sleep.

    I Would Say "Balance" (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Spike on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:34:40 AM EST
    This convention is about "Change" and the "Future." If Hillary and Bill Clinton were the anointed keynoters two nights in a row it could create the dominant impression that the theme is "Back to the '90s." By balancing Hillary with Mark Warner and Bill with the VP pick, it simultaneously puts the spotlight on the past, present and future leadership of the party.

    And I wouldn't ignore the fact that from a strategic standpoint it makes sense to give Mark Warner a high profile role. He is going to win that Senate seat by such a huge margin that he could have reverse-coattails. Colorado and Virginia are key to Obama's electoral college strategy. The site of the convention helps on the former and highlighting Warner as a party leader helps on the latter.


    define the change and define the future (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by kimsaw on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:20:15 AM EST
    What will change under Obama? How many buses will Obama need as tosses Dems under it? The change the  White House will get is a bigger bus garage!

    The Clintons helped change the lives of many Americans during the 90's and they continue to do so today. Tell me what change Obama has brought or will bring besides a name and a face .

    The Clintons have actively worked in the past, the present and the future. So they, themselves are activists in the land of "could be".

    On Women's night the keynote speaker is a man... you gotta love that!

    It's amazing how the acceptance by Obama is the anniversary of MLK's "I Have A Dream" Speech. Can we talk about creating history now?


    I have had a lot of changes in my life (5.00 / 11) (#18)
    by BernieO on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:44:48 AM EST
    that were not for the better. All these pundits blathering on about how this is a change election make me sick. We got plenty of change in 2000. This kind of simplistic sloganeering is wrecking our country.

    womens night (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM EST
    Yes, I was pretty surprised (altho by now, I'm disappointed in myself that anything about this surprises me) to see the main speaker on the night to celebrate Womens right to vote is a MAN too, but it pretty much tells me all I need to know. I hope thy let us know at which times people will be speaking, so we can pick who we want to watch and when we rather watch HGTV or QVC

    What's weird to me (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Little Fish on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    Is that Tuesday is ladiez night, but Pelosi, Michelle O, Sebelius and McCaskill are speaking then night before.  


    Although, maybe it's better not to make such a huge fuss over women's acheivements.  It'll look a little like "Hey, you got the right to vote 88 years ago and look, this time you ALMOST made it! Good for you! ::pats on head::"


    Ouch. Watch that pat on the head! (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    It's still pretty badly bruised from just cracking that glass ceiling, y'know.  

    Why a man for Women's Night (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    If Obama didn't want Hillary as keynote speaker, then choosing another woman for that might have been worse than choosing a man...

    As for 'change' and 'future' and an avoidance of the 90s, it would have been good for the party as a whole to celebrate a change similar to the 2 recent terms of a Democratic presidency and the relative peace and prosperity we had back then.  And a time when Democrats were united.

    In fact, until this primary, most of us had a lot of nostalgia for those days and hoped to get something like that again.  Instead the 'us' I speak of are friends who are drastically split now and quite apart because Obama could not give due and respect to anyone named Clinton because one of them was his primary opponent.

      Ironically, it's been an unusually divisive time, much more so than I remember when friends were just pulling for different candidates.  Now the Clintons are seen by too many in the Dem party as racist and quite evil.  

      Instead, even yesterday, another Daily Kos diary and comments were still filled with poison toward the Clintons.  And that's the vaunted "unity" we hear about.


    This is a time when ANY woman (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17:35 AM EST
    would have been better. If Obama had chosen McCaskill, we would have all ranted about Claire, but we would have given Obama credit for choosing a woman and, albeit grudgingly, understood that he chose a woman who supports him. To ask a man to speak in the keynote position on this historic night is a huge slap in face. Much larger a slap than choosing another woman over Hillary. Obama is either completely deaf, not just tone deaf, or he really has little respect for women. There is no other explanation.

    It's not women's night anymore, is it? (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    I thought they changed that name, even.

    I think they want to crush the Clintons, period. Anyone who doesn't like that gets a spot under the bus.

    Well, maybe Bill can win the Nobel Prize like Gore did and humiliate Obama like Gore did Bush.

    I am not voting for any third-party candidate but I'm getting more and more serious about not voting for the top position at all.

    I am so profoundly disgusted with Obama, the DNC, etc. They just don't quit, and their behavior and choices are so hate-filled, divisive and cold. It just makes me sick.

    They've told me that I am neither needed nor wanted. They throw every true progressive under the bus.

    And the worst is how the media and blogosphere eat it up, I hate to say, like a dog over his vomit.

    No money to Obama or DNC or DCCC. No signs in the yard. No buttons or t-shirts (except my Hillary one). Let them make it on their own.


    Is this what is meant by (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    a "dog whistle"? Is having Warner and Casey speak on the anniversary of women's suffrage a message to women that your fate is in our hands not yours so sit down and STFU?  I've been having a hard time understanding what a dog whistle is politically, but I just might be catching on.

    Simply Amazing (1.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Spike on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:58:18 AM EST
    "The Clintons have actively worked in the past, the present and the future."

    Isn't it amazing how they've not only provided a Bridge to the 21st Century, but also a Bridge to the Space-Time Continuum. I can't wait to find out what miraculous things they've already accomplished in the future. :)


    Mr. "Clarification" speaks again! ;-) (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    Check out the Clinton Foundation (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by D Jessup on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    It is all about the now and future. Hope, to the Clintons is not just a word, it is Reality.

    The Clinton Foundation HIV /AIDS Initiative, has cared and treated over 750,000 people.  Clinton Global Initiative is a non partisan iniitiatve that brings non-profit organizations, charities and business leaders together to find solutions for the worlds most pressing issues.

    Everything he is doing right now is about the future.  Just because you hate the Clintons don't mean that they are not working their hearts out for a better future.


    CDS, Moi? (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Spike on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:37:57 AM EST
    "Just because you hate the Clintons..."

    I worked in the Clinton White House for eight years. I hold both President Clinton and Senator Clinton in the highest regard. I have their pictures on the wall of my office. My support for Senator Obama doesn't not in any way diminish my opinion of the contribution they have made to America.


    Your previous comment did not (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    show that you hold them in the highest regard at all. It was sarcastic and cutting. You're a big phony.

    Agreed. Spike repeatedly bashes (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    the Clintons in his comments.  And now we get "who me"?

    Clarification ;) (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Spike on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    The comment in question was not in any way "sarcastic and cutting" with regard to the Clintons themselves. The fact that I don't think that they can literally travel in time does not diminish the regard in which I hold them. However, I will admit that the comment contained a playful jab at some of her supporters who ascribe to them such superhuman powers. If that makes me a "phony" in your eyes, I doubt that there is much that I can say to persuade you otherwise.

    Playful jab? (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    Playful jabs at the people here?  [But the anger has been replaced by a nasty bitterness that is only getting worse with time.] [Such troll-like behavior] [whiny, bitter,] [pathetic cast of characters]

    Jabs at the site?  [As this site has become a breeding ground for negativity, I've decided to give up on my diplomatic mission.  Thank You and Good Luck With This Mess][this place has become tiresome]

    Your attitude towards the Clinton's was noticed months ago.  [I Have Not Forgotten SC and Will Not Forgive ] Respect the Clintons?  [permanent stain on their legacy] [Hillary Clinton will ultimately blame herself]
    [Either she was lying when she originally made the comment or lying when she later claimed that the votes had to be counted. Which is it? ] [Clinton has gone relentlessly negative ] [If Clinton were the nominee, I would write in Obama]

    Which all ended in: [I was just banned by BTD]


    Thank You... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Spike on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    ...for linking to the entire posts and not just cherry picking phrases. I stand by what I said in all of them. Although I worked in the Clinton White House, I made the decision in Feb 2007 that I would support Senator Obama for president. That decision did not reflect any particular animus toward the Clintons, simply that I had concluded that he would be a better leader at this time in our history. However, during the course of this campaign there have been times when the words and actions of the Clintons have disappointed me. However, her concession speech was certainly gracious and I have set aside any animosity that I felt toward them during the primaries. I fully realize that is much harder for those who supported Sen. Clinton to do. When visiting this site I have been called a Clinton-hater, a troll, a liar, etc simply because I have tried to respectfully offer an alternative point of view. I am not a troll. I have been actively involved in progressive politics for 35 years and have no interest in wasting time on petty name calling. I stayed away for a long time after that message addressed to Jeralyn above. I recently returned to take the temperature to see if the mood had improved. Sadly, it hasn't. Too many here would rather dwell on their bitterness with like-minded comrades than engage someone with a different point of view in civil conversation. I have to respect that and will no longer impose as my presence is clearly unwanted.




    Your previous comments (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:04:12 PM EST
    on this and other threads certainly give the impression that you are anti-Clinton(s).

    So what was your job, exactly, (none / 0) (#99)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    in the Clinton administation?

    If you can't say what it was and what your real name is, you're clearly lying about this.


    Yeah well other than running for office (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by rooge04 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:27:40 AM EST
    our maybe-Prez hasn't done diddly. You know...other than destroy the reputation of the last Great Dem Prez and split the party. The future looks bright indeed!

    Simply Amazing (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:44:35 AM EST
    How much better it will be under Obama when we return to the clarity, optimism, sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that has been missing since the Reagan years. Not to mention our return to the great foreign policy of the Reagan/BushI years. This will be especially true if both the Departments of Defense and State are lead by Republicans.  I simply can't wait. Just what I have been pining for all these years.

    Come on Spike (none / 0) (#46)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    we know who the miracle worker is  - that's why that bridge is there in the first place.

    How presumptive of me to... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kimsaw on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    have faith you'd "get it"! I guess I should have included  "will" and "in"-so here you go "... and will in the future". Make more sense to you now! I sure hope so! ;-)

    Thank You (none / 0) (#82)
    by Spike on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    That is not only much clearer, but I'm sure that it is true. ;-)

    On Women's night the keynote speaker is a man... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Amiss on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    A slap in the face to women's suffrage.

    Not only that (none / 0) (#115)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    but anti-abortion Bob Casey will be speaking that night as well.

    We've been nixed I believe. (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:06:58 PM EST
    and in choosing warner (none / 0) (#69)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:48:23 AM EST
    they also got a real left-wing democrat (like the mighty FISA lovin' dem nominee) to balance hillary's "tepid centrism." anyway, i think  somebody somewhere must be saying that. and believing it too.

    She will give the final speech of the night (none / 0) (#92)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    That's always the biggest.

    Will it be in primetime or will (none / 0) (#94)
    by tree on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    it get pushed later because of earlier speeches going over their time limit?

    For a campaign that's been about... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by EL seattle on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:23:38 AM EST
    ..."change", this reads like the rundown of a very generic democratic convention.  If Obama is trying to attract a lot of new voters, I'm not sure if it will help the cause if the newbies get bored to death by the convention rituals and lose interest in things like the November down-ticket races.  

    I've gotta agree (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BrianJ on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    And remember how much good such a convention did Kerry-  none whatsoever.  For all the talk about GOoPers being "dispirited" and "discouraged," I suspect they won't answer this pabulum in kind.

    Well, I am definitely skipping (5.00 / 19) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:13:28 AM EST
    Monday night, after I heard that it's going to be about telling Barack's life story - do they really think there are people who don't know it yet?

    Michelle Obama's brother said some vile things about Hillary - he will be speaking - no thanks on that one.

    Claire McCaskill will be speaking.  The word "blergh" comes to mind.

    Nancy Pelosi will be at the podium...it just gets better and better, doesn't it?

    Maybe they ought to rename the theme for Monday and call it Tone Deafness: Striking the Wrong Note is What We Do Best.

    Honestly, given the events of the last year, I don't have enough respect for any of these people that I want to take the time to listen to anything they have to say.

    As for Mark Warner being the keynote speaker - it's not his fault he's being given that honor, but in my opinion the only person who deserves that honor this year is Hillary.  And as I understand it, she will be the last person to speak on Tuesday night.  The Tone Deafness spreads.

    With Pelosi and McCaskill on the Monday night bill (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:59:22 AM EST
    and a feature on Obama, the theme needs to be "Pursuing A Republican Agenda: Honoring our leaders in this endeavor." They need to add "Give Them Everything They Want Harry" to the list.

    Pursuing a totalitarian agenda (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    A Republican one might be relatively benign.

    Check out Colorado Democrats Threaten Clinton Delegate's Status because of a private email she wrote to another delegate. She was writing AS a Clinton delegate to the convention, discussing her concern over the treatment of Clinton delegates and saying she was not sure she could vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention later this month.

    The political director of Colorado's Democratic Party sent her an email:

    Dear Ms. Millstone: A complaint has been filed with the Colorado Democratic Party, by a fellow Democratic National Convention delegate, regarding your position as a Delegate to the National Convention in light of the disparaging public remarks you have made and continue to make regarding our Party's presumptive nominee for President, Sen. Obama.

    Therefore, you are hereby directed to come in to the Party Headquarters and explain your comments and why you should remain a national delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in light of these comments. I can be reached at 303-XXX-XXXX. Your immediate attention to this urgent matter is requested."

    Much more at the web report.  She hired an attorney.


    Mark Warner - (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:37:45 AM EST
    he certainly won't outshine Obama.  As I recall he is a lackluster speaker.  

    And he is straight from the DLC mold (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    Can't you just feel the change?

    I for one am not really sure (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:43:59 AM EST
    that I do know Obama's life story.  And, I'm not sure that he has ever told it honestly.

    I've read many reports that his books dpn't tell the truth about his life.

    The first GE campaign commercial I saw for Obama in NC would lead you to believe that he grew up dirt poor somewhere in Kansas with his mother surviving on food stamps.

    I honestly have no real idea of the timeline of his childhood.  I have no idea when he lived with who and where he lived.  ONe day I hear his upper middle calss grandparents raised him in Hawaii and sent him to private schools there.  The next day, I hear he spent his childhood in Indonesia and attended school there, although, it is unclear whether he attended a secular school or Muslim school there.  I've heard it both ways.  But, then again, as I said, in NC he wants ne to believe his single mother raised him on food stamps.

    How many "stories" can one person have?


    Well, I wouldn't count on having (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:54:35 AM EST
    any of your questions cleared up by "the people who know Obama best."

    How many "stories" can one person have?  As many as he needs to win.


    Obama admitted he "fictionalized" (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    his alleged autobiographies -- which thus ought not be called by that term.

    I had the same problem until I googled (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    his mother's name and found information.  The best came from the Chicago newspapers, which I couldn't find later.  I did begin to understand the sequencing, altho' the "handlers" tried to push the poor mother on food stamps which was really stretching it.  For a few years while his mother was going to graduate school, she applied for stamps, not uncommon for ALL students to receive in those days.  Students in California as I saw, also were eligible for Medicaid since they were emancipated and had no real income.  That didn't mean they were not being subsidized by their parents as Stanley Ann Dunham was during much of Obama's youth.

    but, my question is (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM EST
    was Barack LIVING with her while she was on food stamps?

    When he was living with his grandparents in Hawaii, where was his mother?

    When he was living with his step father in Indonesia, where was his mother?

    Honestly, can someone put the timeline together for me of where he lived, with who and under what circumstances by age range?


    foodstamps (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM EST
    IIRC Obama said he was going to his prep school when his mother was on food stamps. Since he was living with his Grandparents when he went to the prep school, I don't see how he was living with his Mother when she was on the food stamps. BUT that doesn't fit the story they try to present. I imagine there will be many people reading the text of Michelle speech with a fine tooth comb and comparing it to what has been said about his childhood. Michelle already said a couple weeks ago, Obama's Mom was very young and very single when she had Barrack, which is different than anything I saw written before.

    I see your point. I had trouble with the (none / 0) (#88)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    Mercer Washington part.  As I read, she met the Kenyan in Oahu where she was going to school and where her mother was a bank Official (VP I read) had Obama, moved around and then came back to her parents when O was about 4 (dad left). Met and married the Indonesian fellow and moved to Indonesia with Barack (now 6).  Sent Barack back to grandparents at 10, where he was then enrolled at Punahou prep school.  He graduated from Punahou and then spent 2 years at Occidental before he went to Columbia.  That is how I pieced it together.  His mother in the meantime was moving around, going to graduate school, etc. The child she bore in Indonesia (O's half sister) also ended up with the grands.

    That lines up with what I've heard (none / 0) (#91)
    by tree on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    The food stamp part of the story has to be from 1964 to 1967 at most, as food stamps weren't available before 1964 and after her marriage to the well-to-do Soetoro she would no longer be eligible, plus after the move to Indonesia there would be no need. I would only add that from what I heard it was at Barack's request that he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents when he was 10. I think his half-sister ended up with the grandparents because of their mother's illness and death.

    much later than 64-67 (none / 0) (#119)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:48:26 PM EST
    From Time mag Obama said  "I had to reconcile a lot of different threads growing up--race, class," he told me. "For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D."
     So I'm not sure when she was working on her PHD, but he lived with Grandparents when he was in Prep school, so couldn't have been living with his Mom at the time.
     Maya was born in 70, I'm not sure when the Mom got sick with cancer, but I was under the impression it wasn't for a long time before she died. Since Ann died in 1995, Maya was 25, so that is another one of those little things that are different than I understood. I also thought Maya went to live with her grandparents because of the Mom's illness death, but I thought it was when she was young, not 25.

    His Mom got her (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by tree on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:21:12 PM EST
    PhD in 1992, when Obama was 31. After Harvard, after he moved to Chicago, after he got a book contract and advance to write his first book. If that constitutes being "raised" by a single mom on food stamps, words no longer mean what I think they mean. Score a big one for chutzpah.

    Re figuring out the Obama timeline (none / 0) (#40)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    Slate just did an Interactive Timeline titled "The Lives of Barack Obama."

    Slate has compiled Obama's speeches, his writings, contemporary news accounts of his life, and recent retrospective articles to show how Obama's life looks different depending on who's looking.
     . . .
    In his speeches, Obama talks about his Chicago organizing days much more than his two years at Occidental College in Los Angeles. He mentions growing up in Hawaii more than he discusses his childhood in Indonesia. Some of that is just good storytelling. But some of it is deliberately curatorial. Obama visited his grandparents' home in Kansas during the campaign, for example, but friends from Harvard were discouraged from talking to the press.

    Re the interactive feature (it's very well done)
    Click the tab along the top that says "Speeches" and you'll see how often he talks about each period of his life, with links to the speeches themselves. Click the "Autobiography" tab to see how much he writes about each era in his books. Click on "Recent News" to see how often newspapers and magazines dedicate to those periods. Or click "Contemporary News" to see how much coverage he got at the time.

    it is interesting also that warner enjoys a (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    substantial lead in virginia whereas senator obama is neck and neck. oh well, heck of a deal dems!

    i wonder if barack will be told (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    his life story before it is told monday night or if he will find out what's he's done in his life the same time everybody else does.

    Oh, MO's brother. (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:24:55 AM EST
    He said all kinds of sexist things about Hill before RI.  Ok.  Monday night is a night of people you couldn't pay me to listen to.

    Really? (none / 0) (#16)
    by BernieO on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:42:19 AM EST
    Where did you read that?

    politcal punch/halperin (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    Of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, Robinson said, "the whole crying now before every primary? You've got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I'd be embarrassed for her." http://tinyurl.com/6a3bkk
    I hope the link works

    I watched him saying that . (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    I won't be watching Monday night.  

    So Tuesday night is the anniversary (5.00 / 18) (#13)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:29:11 AM EST
    of a major event in the political life of women, and Obama chooses a man to give the keynote address that night? Is there no woman anywhere in the United States who could make a significant enough speech to be asked to deliver the keynote at this convention? Is it too much to ask of this man to give one night of the convention over to the celebration of women's accomplishments? You know, the next time a woman tells me that electing Senator Obama to the presidency will be good for women, I'm going to physically assault her. I won't be able to stop myself. This is so insulting to more than half of the Democratic Party.

    Thanks (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Athena on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:36:24 AM EST
    Will Warner's theme be "Women's Equality Day?"  Sure.  Just give the little women their history pageant and get out of the way for the big boys.

    After all, history doesn't happen for women.  It only happens to Obama.  Are we sure that the stadium is big enough?


    Golly, I hope I'll be around when Dems can safely (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    ... view women as people. For now, it's enough to crawl forward with this bus on my back and be guaranteed straight from the Presumptive Horse's um, other end that our efforts aren't unappreciated.

    When his little girls are grown up, he's pretty sure they'll appreciate the stories of how Sen Clinton gave him a darned good "workout" and "Spring Training" while the party shredded her votes and carried him across the finish line in a wheelbarrow.

    What more could any second class citizen ask?


    The day that this country at last (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:24:44 AM EST
    lived up, at least on paper, to the promise of the Declaration of Independence and democracy.

    Not until 88 years ago did the majority of Americans have the right to vote.

    But sure, let's listen to a guy from a state that refused to ratify the 19th Amendment for another 32 years.*

    *Virginia ratified in 1952.  Maybe on this Women's Equality Day, Warner will explain that little legislative delay for us.  Hmm, was it lost in committee?


    And about "Renewing the Promise"? (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    I'm weary of promises -- renewed, revised, restored, relabeled, whatever.

    Can we please, please fulfill the promise?  

    How about Warner announces that number-one on the New Dem agenda will be winning the ERA?  After 85 years, since it first was introduced?

    That would be change that I could believe in -- finally achieving Constitutional equality for more than half of the American people.

    The 19th Amendment only negated the word "male" in the previous amendments in terms of suffrage.  The suffragists made clear in 1923, with the proposed ERA, that there was more to equality.  Their daughters' daughters made it clear again in the 1970s.  Yet here we are in a new millennium. . . .


    Mario Cuomo (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    We speak for women who are indignant that this nation refuses to etch into its governmental commandments the simple rule "thou shalt not sin against equality," a rule so simple --

    I was going to say, and I perhaps dare not but I will. It's a commandment so simple it can be spelled in three letters: E.R.A.

    24 years, a full generation later, here we are.  If you think about how a nation with more women than men managed to avoid passing the ERA, it's pretty unfathomable.


    Things could always be worse, I guess (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:30:02 AM EST
    They could have chosen Claire McCaskill or Donna Brazile to represent the women of the Democratic Party (excuse me as I get violently nauseous at the thought).

    Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Boo Radly on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    The lineup seems to change daily - don't give them anymore disgusting ideas. Bizzzaaro world lives on.

    McCaskill IS speaking on Monday (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    night - I guess she's one of those who knows Obama best...

    McCaskill's daughter oughta speak (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:40:25 AM EST
    instead of her mom, since it must be her daughter who knows Obama best -- because McCaskill said she switched based on what her daughter said.  Not on what Obama said.  I think of McCaskill, as the song goes, as "Second-Hand Information Rose."

    Maria Shiver also endorsed O based on (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    her kids' pressuring her. Or was it Caroline Kennedy? Or both?

    Oh yeah, and how profoundly stupid can you get??? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    These are our leaders? I don't think so.

    Probably needed to be clearer in my comment (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:47:24 AM EST
    I was referring to having either of them as the keynote speaker on Monday.

    As far as knowing Obama best..., IIRC as part of her endorsement she did say that she and Obama were ideological allies. Considering their identical votes on the Bush Cover Up and Elimination of Rights Bill (aka FISA) this is probably true and not a reason to vote for Obama as Claire proudly struts  her bipartisan creds for all the world to see. If elected, I think we will unfortunately see just how alike Obama and McCaskill truly are.


    that lady has nothing to say i want to (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    hear. my set will be silent and i'll look for a good book.

    s's mom, they already have michelle (none / 0) (#72)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:52:14 AM EST
    speaking monday night and they did not want to schedule her twice.

    If Obama had any sense... (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:48:20 AM EST
    Bill Clinton would have been the "opening" speaker on Monday night (passing the torch as it were), and Hillary would be introducing Obama on Thursday (the 'last hurrah' and a massive demonstration of Democratic Party unity.)  That way, the 'keynote' and VP speehes on Tuesday and Wednesday night would get some attention -- but nobody is gonna care what Mark Warner has to say with Hillary in the house, and NOBODY is gonna care what the VP says with The Big Dog in the house.

    I agree with you. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:06:08 AM EST
    This sounds like a much better plan.

    And why subvert Hillary by choosing Mark Warner as keynote?  Is that subtle move going to somehow make Virginia vote for Obama?

    I just don't get why the Party Convention cannot give more props to two of the most visible and integral members of the party.  You wouldn't do this to a friend.


    This anoints the successor (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    -- see Obama's speech at the 2004 convention.  So the Kerry-Kennedy machine, having lost their Southern boy Edwards to bring in the vote of the Appalachian unwashed, are anointing their next American-with-a-drawl to draw Southern votes.

    I won't be listening but I may be looking at the speech later to see where my former party is headed next.  There were interesting warning signs in that 2004 Obama speech.  Remember, no more red or blue states, blah blah blah?  Turns out he meant no more politics of contrast between the parties.  Bleh.


    check the current polls in virginia. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    obama can't break out and warner is 20% ahead of his opponent.

    p lukasiak, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    you should be running obama's campaign. i think if you were, you'd make it easier for me to vote for him. but i guess they think we have no choice. and they may be right.

    And we're going back to (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:52:18 AM EST
    "Change You Can Believe In" for Obama's Big Night, huh?  Swell.  

    All I can think when I hear that is that Bank of America must be gnashing its corporate teeth that it didn't think of "Change You Can Believe In" as a sub-slogan for their "Keep the Change" program.

    The Obama Mantra is just so...corporate; another pitch that sounds like it's supposed to benefit you, but actually benefits him.


    looking forward to Mark on Tue (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:52:32 AM EST
    but then I know him and I'm a bit biased towards him. I think he can pull off a good speech, though he's not the best at that. But I agree with many above about what the theme of Tuesday should be and how this definitely is meant to minimize Hillary and frankly women in general. Not much change there. But we can always hope. Snark.

    Well the Unity Pony (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    is definitely riding off in the other direction, isn't it?

    Message:  We are snubbing you Hillary for having the nerve to run against "the historical candidate".

    LOL!  Could Hillary supporters -- I mean true ones -- feel any more snubbed as well?

    obama is more like the "hysterical" (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    candidate, running hither and yon trying ANYTHING to shore up support.  I have never seen such a sore "supposed" winner in my entire life.  Doesn't matter where they put Hillary (guess the restroom wasn't available), she and Bill will outshine no matter what.  If I had my druthers, they would walk away and create the NEW Democratic Party today!

    I am now an independent because (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    the Democratic party no longer speaks for me. I really wish we could have more viable parties. I have been working for instant runoff voting for a long time, with the goal of getting more viable third party candidates on board. But I will be dead before this  comes to pass. The politicians are dead set against it.  And why not?  It weakens their power. We have got to find a way to break the choke hold these two parties have on our country.  It is called winner take all and it stinks.

    Hairspray....during the primaries if it was (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    winner take all, obama would be on his way back to Chicago.   The dems convoluted b.s. has set us back, not to mention how it has become fashionable to crap on members of your own party.
    With Hillary, Bill and those disenchanted with the dem party, I am not sure it would be that tough to put another party in play.  They could actually stand for what the dem party used to stand for.  

    Mark who? (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:15:10 AM EST
    I seriously doubt that 95% of the country even knows who Mark Warner is. What a ridiculous choice. But, if Obama can shove another one you know where on the Clintons, more power to him.

    I also love the themes that Axlerod came up with. You have to admit, when it comes to propaganda, there is know difference between him and Karl Rove. In fact, Axlerod is Rove on steroids when it comes to propaganda.

    Why (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:25:30 AM EST
    is Sen. Claire McCaskill speaking???

    And what Michelle Obama's brother has to do with anything?


    Pretty insulting HRC is not the keynote speaker given the will of the voters this primary season...
    One would think 18 Million votes mean something to
    the DNC and for democracy.

    And didn't her brother insult (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by rooge04 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    Hillary pretty viciously during the primaries?

    Good catch. I forgot about that one (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    Of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, Robinson (Michelle Obama's brother) said, "the whole crying now before every primary? You've got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I'd be embarrassed for her."

    Thought I remembered something (none / 0) (#96)
    by rooge04 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    rude. Great to see he's going to introduce his sister. Lovely.

    Yes he did (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    Way to go DNC ...

    snark (none / 0) (#68)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    According to the convention (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:44:42 AM EST
    communnications director, who was on POTUS 08 last evening, Monday night is going to be about telling Barack's story - that's where Michelle and her brother come in, because who better to tell the story than the "people who know him best?"

    No word on which story they will be telling, or whether they will be telling the same story, or whether the story will come with disclaimers that names and events have been combined and consolidated to make it a better story.

    It's too bad they don't have an "Under the Bus"-themed evening planned; that might be worth watching.


    Okay..... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    Can we spend the rest of the convention talking about Democratic/progressive policies?

    Story, eh?  Stories are what I read to my kids at night, er kid.  I read my older son his books on stars and planets.  His little brother still gets the fluffy stuff.


    And cousin Odinga? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:15:56 PM EST
    when will his appearance be revealed?

    Anne....I am sure they are working (none / 0) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    feverishly to get "any" story straight and with the same talking points, whether true or not.  

    Well, Obama loves basketball and Michelle's (none / 0) (#110)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:08:40 PM EST
    brother is the new head coach of the men's basketball team at Oregon State University. So, a little shoutout to college basketball fans. You know it's an important demographic.

    On Tuesday night (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:00:09 AM EST
    which I thought was "Women's Night" we also have Senator Bob Casey (PA) -- who's anti-abortion -- speaking.  Great message to send to the Voters, Barack, as well as your "friends" in the GOP who are gonna beat you senseless with this.

    The DNC tin ear just never fails to disappoint.

    Casey's going to speak then? (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by splashy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:31:56 AM EST

    Looks like the Dem party has pretty much turned it's back on women. I figure it's the invasion of the rats from the Repub party jumping ship to the party they figure will be in power now. They have no interest but their own.

    As an "optional" it seems to me the Dem party will suffer from this.


    Bob Casey on Tue night??? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM EST
    WTH? That's nuts... I am speechless....

    That is simply appalling. (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:48:51 AM EST
    Appalling.  And did I mention appalling?

    I began to look more closely at my longtime Dem loyalty precisely when the leadership picked and pushed Casey, because he does not support the platform (on this issue, I knew, and perhaps others).

    So this cinches it that the party platform is just blather -- which leaves as many questions about what the Dems are as there are questions about who Obama is.  Which leaves nothing, nada, to win my vote.

    I think we can predict that the party platform will be like Obama's website.  We'll be sent to it to see what the party is about, because it will be too busy party-planning big rah-rah rallies.

    But the party platform will be like Obama's website in that items will disappear with a click.

    Hmm, anyone else recall the last time that women heard what was called the "click"?  And what happened next?


    This is just insulting (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:58:26 AM EST
    I think we need Hillary to deliver a "Shame on YOU, Barack Obama!" speech Tuesday night. She's sitting there fighting to keep Bush from eroding our right to choose even more and Obama puts this guy on the same night as her?!

    To wrangle the all important Fertilized Egg Vote (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    By my calculation, they're a huge portion of Obama's awesome army of spanking new Dumpling Dems that have rendered the usual boring ones obsolete.

    Obama's EggO's will be powering the election day phone banks like crazy and sending loads of pre-signed checks too.


    So much for Tuesday (none / 0) (#113)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    being about women. THAT is a slap in the face.

    Sen., ex-1st Lady and Prez pioneer Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    ... has her work cut out for her.

    How can anyone possibly follow an act like Michelle Obama's brother?

    [/eyeroll into a tumbling line annnnd sticking the landing]

    The Obama follies are sounding more and more like they'll have all the excitement of a juicer infommercial. I'm guessing MO will present herself as a pseudo-Barbara Jordan (whose historical DemCon speech Obama 'generously' cribbed for his Visionary Karaoke), and if I did tune in I'd be dry heaving well into the chill of November.

    am not surprised at all. (4.75 / 12) (#6)
    by kimsaw on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:59:22 AM EST
    This is strictly the week of Obama. The Clintons will be minimized to an insignificant blip in history as we journey to a New America. We are traveling to the land of "could be".

    It will be the shining moment when the Democratic Party is laid to rest and the Obama Nation is born. 75,000  standing in praise with their fingers joined in "O" ought to be a stellar picture of an America to come. The pageantry of Beijing on the field with rock stars giving praise to one of their own. Fireworks of brilliance bringing a new dawn to the nation of "could be".

    Can't you see it? All will be right with the world as our nation is redefined by "The One" who will bring the "change" craved by the adoring masses. A word of caution bring sunglasses because they say a glimpse of the golden halo is blinding.

    Love this post (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by stefystef on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:59:00 AM EST
    I'm feeling the "change" and "hope" coming too.

    Hope I feel it enough in November to actually vote.  


    Gonna be a short-lived change (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by BrianJ on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    If Obama keeps blowing major publicity opportunities on moderate-to-conservative Senate candidates who don't need the help.  Isn't this where you normally promote up and comers?  Like, you know, Obama himself?

    When the Clintons and their supporters are more likely to get good words from McCain than Obama, that's a problem.  For Obama, I mean.  Clinton supporters are likely to find their own solutions that don't involve voting for Barry.


    with polar caps in meltdown along with (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM EST
    our economy, you will excuse me while i barf at the thought of the same group who did nothing for in the past two years celebrates doing nothing. change? first they'd have to get off their arses to do that.

    Are you referring to the fact that (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST
    the US Senate just failed to renew 18 billion dollars in tax credits for renewable energy projects?

    well that is part of it. we have a guy (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    running for congress here in houston who has built windmill farms. t boone pickens(who knew) is appearing on tv in texas asking for renewable energy.

    Strange but true. I read the T. Boone story (none / 0) (#107)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:35:21 PM EST
    also.  When the sh.. hits the fan and the fat cats know there is finally some money to be made, they do come around, don't they?

    there are inventors working overtime (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    and they have some real answers already. but the cabal here will say and do just about anything to keep the american people from getting near it. too many fat cats and too much control!

    hellothere.. I want to read the comments on (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    another site by Big Tent Democrat but I cannot bring the thread up.  Do you know why?  I get the comments on all of the other sites.  Can you help me?  There is no FAQ on this blog that I know of.  thanks

    i am just about computer illiterate. (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:30:42 PM EST
    i highly recommend that you send a direct email to btd. he is very good about responding.

    Seems now, according to Mark Halperin (none / 0) (#120)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    Tuesday won't have anything to do with women or the anniversary of women's surrerage.


    Also, it kills hte Sebelius as VP rumr, she is speaking on Tuesday. Hillary will be giving a speach on the working class.

    Powell (none / 0) (#121)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:56:46 PM EST
    Bill Kristol just said On Fox, he heard Colin Powell will endorse Obama and speak at the convention on Wed, the same night as Bill

    Colin (I won't resign on principle) Powell? That (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
    Sec of State for Bush?

    Grand. That'll fit well with Obama's legendary opposition to the Iraq Invasion....