First Night Recap

Michelle Obama did a great job I thought. It was important political work as well, as she improved her own image and the end, when Barack Obama appeared via satellite and the Obama kids were impossibly cute, was terrific political theatre.

The Teddy Kennedy segment was moving.

The rest of the Convention night, at least on television, was terrible. Just terrible. As bad as I have ever seen. Boring, aimless, pointless. I have no idea why this was done but it can not happen again. Of course Hillary Clinton's speech will likely be a highlight. But what about the rest of the night? No repeat of last night please. If a glove was laid upon McCain and the Republicans, I did not see it.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Monday Photos: Ted Kennedy, Michelle Obama | Monday Photos From the Big Tent and Pepsi Center >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    CNN had the worst coverage ever (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:55:49 AM EST
    It was painful to watch.  They gave very little time to most of the speakers and instead played up the rift every 20 seconds.  I did hear that Pelosi actually called out McCain a few times and led some chants, but it was not covered by CNN (of course).

    Watch CSPAN - they do gavel to gavel (none / 0) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:02:31 AM EST
    coverage with no distracting talkers.

    PBS too had more of the actual speeches (none / 0) (#6)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:05:16 AM EST
    The Pelosi-led call and response (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    was incredibly poor.  You'd think she would be a better cheerleader, at the very least.

    It is hard to be a good cheerleader (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    when you know you have made a colossal mistake and are probably going to have to pay a "not-so-pretty" price down the road.

    James Carville is quite cranky (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:00:43 AM EST
    about the showing last night.  He thought Kennedy and Michelle Obama were great - but he expected that.  He like you complained about the rest of the night and his primary complaint is that they did not go after Bush last night - he wants to see a sense of urgency that reflects the 80% wrong track numbers in the public.  They are asking the same question on Morning Joe.  

    I was incredibly bored by the speakers - Claire McCaskill stood out for me because she sounded more like she was doing a tourist board commercial for the state of Missouri than a political speech.

    Mark Warner is the keynote speaker - he won't go after Bush according to the previews people are talking about.  Senator Clinton will I expect.  I imagine tomorrow night Bill will too.

    I thought to myself as I watched that line up last night that it would have been a good night for Charlie Rangel to set up how we got here and not for nothin' go after the Republicans effectively in that context.  Ooops.

    I don't think that Michelle Obama said the words Democratic Party even once in her speech.  Seems odd.  Pretending not to be a Democrat at the Democratic National Convention.  Obama needs our party and I think they do need to stop trying to pretend that they don't.

    I still don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:40:12 AM EST
    why General Clark wasn't even invited.  Did his remarks about readiness make him really that vulnerable?

    I don't think they made Clark (none / 0) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:47 AM EST
    vulnerable - I think Clark's comments made the Obama people scared.

    The strategy (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    is bull in a china shop I guess.  "Don't ruffle McCain's feathers!  Conflict is expensive!!"

    Is Biden a great attack dog? (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    Show me how that has proved true.  It hasn't yet.  It may not.

    From a distance, the Obama campaign seems admirable.  But I don't care about 2007 - I care about 2008.  So far demographics and primary season victories suggest that Obama can win.  But don't try to tell me dropping in the polls 3 mos before the GE date is part of the master plan.  

    Clark is a really good asset for the Dems.  The Obama people are literally passing him over.  It's dumb.

    The best negative ads I've seen have been from my local DSCC effort.  They're not afraid to tear into the failures of Bush.

    Obama needs to make an ad that attacks Bush, and shows how McCain wants the same things.  That puts the onus on McCain to either disagree (and show he's been lying to his base the past months) or agree (and show how horrible he will be!).


    We're all distractions to (none / 0) (#95)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    "the plan."  But hey, I'm good with it.  Iraq was fine - and I think the vacation was okay.  Europe not so much.

    Gen. Clark deserved more respect - you've got to start attacking one of these days.  However, maybe Obama will not attack and leave that to others.  We'll see.  


    I am sure Carville (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:09:25 AM EST
    was actually angry because faux-moderate Jim Leach was asked to speak.

    This was clearly a deliberate slap at Bill Clinton. Leach was one of his most aggressive enemies, using - abusing - his postion as chair of the House Banking Committee to work with Scaife's Arkansas Project to investigate the bogus Mena Airport charges. Leach spent THREE YEARS and thousand of hours investigating this hoax. He allowed numerous damaging leaks to the media during those years so the right could undermine Clinton, but never even produced a hearing or a final report! (Your tax dollars at work.) His spokesman did eventually admit that they had never had any evidence against Clinton.....(Check out Murray Waas' and Joe Conason's reports at Salon.com.)

    This choice was not accidental but just more insult to Bill Clinton. Disgusting!!


    Thanks for the background (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:45:43 AM EST
    on Leach.  I didn't know all that about him.

    His speech was terrible in terms of delivery, but if you actually listened, he struck some sharp blows at the Bush administration and his own party.  Too bad the Democrats didn't follow his example.


    I can't figure out why in the world (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    Claire needed her kids to introduce her. That seems like a practice used for much more important figures. My tv spends a lot of time on mute while I wait for the speakers I want to hear.

    Because her kids' influence is (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    her rationale for supporting Obama?

    P.S.  If you are going to have all three kids behind the podium, for heaven's sake don't have just the boy speak while the girls look on adoringly.  


    Not once - (none / 0) (#94)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM EST
    oi - that is a worry.  

    I am looking forward (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:22 AM EST
    to the Bill & Hillary's speeches. I am just... hoping they blow the lights out of that place. I'm afraid that Hillary's speech has already been written by the powers that be. I hope not. I am sick of what seems to be the bullying tactics of the Democratic Party.

    Seriously Nancy -- and others we could mention --should be expunged from the Party... and the Clintons need to deliver speeches that promise the beginning of this healing process.

    I'm not watching any coverage. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by magisterludi on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    The thrill is gone.

    I have no earthly idea what the DNC is really trying to accomplish other than lose the liberal populist wing of their base. They even distort the aims of my wing- as if it's all about abortion and killing God in the public square. I'm thinking they sold their souls to the moneymen and those jerks only like populists with a side of fries.

    It's the freaking unfairness of the economy, stupid. No wonder Carville looked p.o'ed. It's enough to make my blood boil, too.

    I thought Michelle (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    did a wonderful job, actually. She did exactly what she needed to do, shake off the "radical-angry-black-panther-woman" image that so many people like to attribute to her. She also, I think, brought herself and her family down to earth, especially with so many on all sides implying that they are celebrities and, as one person put it, "were born talking to 20,000 people." She tried to bring her husband down to earth, but she can't please everybody.

    To some, she'll always be angry, and to others, he'll always be a know-nothing vapid celebrity who does not have any values to speak of since he does not now, nor has he ever, done any hard work in his life, he has never shown anyone any respect ever, and he always lies. I mean, really, since when has he ever told the truth, right? I may have only known him throughout the primaries, and I may not even be directly related to him, but I know a lifelong perpetual liar when I see/hear one on TV.

    Michelle's speech (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by sas on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    was sugary sweet and she was a caricature of herself.

    Bringing the kids onstage at the end to talk to Daddy was one of the most revolting scenes I have seen.  "Pimping" your kids for your own political gain - and as scriptedmas could be.

    I thought Lassie, Shirley Temple, and Mr. Rogers were going to come out from behind the curtain at any minute.


    I thought I was the only one. (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by ctrenta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST

    Great to heat somebody else think the same. It just felt like the whole thing incident was staged by the DNC. It all seemed artificial and hokey. Hey, I like Obama but I have to detach from stuff like this. I don't dig the touchy feeley stuff at conventions. No matter who the candidates are. I just sit there and roll my eyes... and this is coming from a father of two.

    I tried explaining my opinion, politely, at Daily Kos. People are reacting as if I committed blasphemy. Whatever.


    'Pimping Your Kids' (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    So I assume you agreed with MSNBC's David Shuster's vile comment that that's what the Clintons were doing having Chelsea out on the campaign trail too, huh?

    Nasty perspective you've got there.

    You must live in a special little apolitical bubble if you think a presidential nominee at a convention never has their family on stage front and center for maximum photo op value. So what? Welcome to mainstream American politics.

    And 'scripted'?

    Yeah, I wonder who composed those words for the 7 year old: "Hi, Daddy. I love you." Who would ever expect a daughter to say that to her dad?


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by trublueCO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:14:00 PM EST
    Hearing from family member that doesn't live in the blogosphere echo chamber, that exchange between Barack and his kids is what they said was the best part of the night.

    Although most of us already have our minds made up over who gets our vote, seeing a moment like that can have an impact on some voters.


    Well (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    I think there's a different standard for little kids than for an adult woman like Chelsea.

    During the primaries, when Fred Thompson wanted to wrap up one of his town halls without looking like he was tired with taking questions, they'd send his little 4-year old to run out on stage and act like she needed daddy's attention, so he'd have an excuse.  I thought that was kind of uncool.

    But how anyone could see it as beyond the pale in politics for the kids to tell daddy they love him is beyond me.  Heck, even the cutest kid is a heck of a lot of work to raise.  You're entitled to get a little mileage out of the deal!


    Not like that.... (none / 0) (#92)
    by ctrenta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST

    ... I just think this was really hokey, cheesy, and touchy-feely. I don't particularly care for that and it all looks so artificial. Hey, I'm a father of two myself and rolled my eyes when I heard that kind of sentimentality. If I were Obama I wouldn't do something like this. It's not necessary for a convention.

    Me too! (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    I was about to go into a diabetic coma (LOL). And I didn't think her delivery was good at all....it was obvious this wasn't natural to her at all. Phony as all get-out.

    And her brother - ick!

    Her mother's delivery was leaden, and the shots of her watching Michelle's delivery showed much intentness (new word?) and no pride.

    I couldn't watch Michelle's whole speech - on mute much of the time, but it was awful. And even worse, there were shots of people in the audience with tears streaming down their faces - aghh! - too creepy.

    There were, though, also people with totally bored looks and no clapping, and I appreciated that! I do look forward to the coming days - if I can stand it.


    I missed the after-speech cuteness! (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Klio on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    I can't believe it!  I stuck it out on C-Span for what seemed like an eternity, but as soon as MO stopped speaking, I clicked off.  Sounds like I missed the best part of the night.

    I largely agree with you, BTD, that Michelle did a good job delivering her speech.  Poised, elegant, confident.  I thought she was too subdued, frankly, which was regrettable, b/c I think her personality is a real strength, but she did confound the worst expectations - that she's angry, or grating, or radical &c.  At the same time, I did think her verbal tic of saying "See ..." when she unveils some nugget about Barack was close to her sometimes-hectoring ways, and it worked my nerves a bit.  

    But then, I was a highly critical observer and I found a lot to fault.

    She looked magnificent, but some of the styling choices were decidedly odd.  Her dress was very, very, very fitted below that empire waist but the dolman sleeves - meh.  They looked a little sloppy.  And the neckline did not flatter.  Her shoulders looked both too sloped and too rounded, her bra straps kept peeking out, which was distracting.  And the color, while lovely on her, made her blend into the background.  Her hair and makeup, otoh, were perfection.  (and yes, these things matter!)

    I thought the effectiveness of her mother's narration on the video introducing her was undercut by mechanical delivery: why wouldn't they let her Mom speak naturally and edit afterwards -- it was so evident she was reading a script, and to my ear, rather jarring.  Didn't like that.  (And I also thought the tribute to Teddy Kennedy could have been a LOT punchier; and maybe featured just a little less of his utterly gorgeous schooner....)

    I'd be curious to know if they lost viewers by having such a slow build up to her speech.  It really did seem to take forever to get to.  

    And the whole night offered so little.  Platitudes, bromides, cliches and banalities from one end to the other.

    As an Obama supporter... (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by ctrenta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST

    .. I thought the conversation with Obama on the telescreen was hokey. Hey, good for Sasha. If that made other people happy, fine. I just thought it was too corny for my tastes and that's coming from a father of two.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    hokey stuff seems to work in politics.  I'm a dad as well and it worked for me.  Those kids are just way too cute.

    I think you have revealed your Achilles (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:07:14 PM EST

    Doesn't mean you should still do it. Agree? n/t (none / 0) (#91)
    by ctrenta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    Personally (none / 0) (#93)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    I can see a line that a parent should not cross as far as involving the kids in a political campaign, but I didn't think last night's event came close to crossing the line.  Just my opinion.

    I was (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Bluesage on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    Hoping that the convention would energize me a bit.  I don't remember a time that I didn't set aside the week to watch every minute but if this one doesn't get better over the next few days we are in real trouble.  C-Span is the only thing that kept that brick from going thru my tv - Nancy Pelosi, omg, she's just horrible.  JJJr., what was that?  I never, ever want to see or hear anything from Clyburn again.  And they thought not inviting Charlie Rangel to speak was a good idea?  I'm convinced that Caroline Kennedy has lost her mind and God Bless Ted Kennedy, I have loved and admired that man forever but he too has so disappointed me this year.  What are they thinking?  There is no honest or positive comparison to JFK to be found anywhere in Obama world.  I just don't get it.  Michelle's speech was nicely written and delivered so I say we nominate her for an Emmy but it doesn't really negate all the tactless things she's said before the speech.  I too missed the family time after the speech because I just had to turn that TV Off.

    I thought the intro film was the highlight, (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    but the speech left me cold. I thought that she was just pushing waaay too hard. It felt saccharine and unreal -- I thought she was laying it on too heavily. I'm sure she was coached to do so, but there was something about it that really made me cringe -- she was speaking in a more sing-song and breathier voice than I've ever heard her use before (and as someone who has coached people in public speaking, I can almost guarantee that she was directed to do so) but she couldn't pull it off and it sounded false to me.

    The daughters are adorable and if they had just left us with the visual of the three of them on stage together, I think it would have been much more effective, but again, they pushed too hard and the teleconference with Barack made me uncomfortable -- it did begin to feel like they were exploiting their kids.

    For anyone who didn't actually watch, the still photos project a very nice image of them.

    on CNN Morning (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    David Brody disagreed, as did Roland Martin of course, with Carville and everyone else who thought the night was less than exciting.

    David said that the democrats need more of what we saw last night, more warm and fuzzy moments, and less policy talk so that America can 'fall in love' with Barack.

    Roland said anyone who thought last night was a mistake in that way was 'stuck on stupid'.

    Oh great! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    More insulting people who dare criticize the campaign.

    What's next (none / 0) (#96)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    a panel of teddy bears?

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sas on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    I used the word "pimping" sarcastically. DUH

    Also, Chelsea acted out of her own volition to get out on the trail.  She was a willing participant.

    What Chelsea id or did not do has nothing to do wth lastnight.

    I'm sure the Obama's 4 year old has many opportnities to tell her father she loves him.  To do it onstage at a political convention where it was no doubt scripted "go out there and tell your daddy you love him" is just another example of the Obama Show.

    Question: it it customary (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    to plaster the name of a candidate, such as Obama, all over the place on the stage and podium before the candidate is awarded the nomination at the convention?  Yes, I know Obama is the presumptive nominee.  For example, was Carter's name prominently displayed on the stage before the vote in 1980?  

    Last night (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    I am a very reluctant Obama supporter but I do think Michelle did what she needed to do last night.  She started stiff but really hit her stride with grace and emotion about halfway through.  I have been impressed with her on and off before but I was impressed with her last night.  She hit all the right notes I believe.  The thing with the kids was a bit much at the end but they are a beautiful family and I do think much of America still needs to see that.

    The intro video to Michelle with her mother was also very moving and well done.

    The rest of the night was b-o-r-i-n-g.  I doubt we will have the same problem when the Clinton's get on stage.  I truly hope there own words are in those speeches as I would expect they are because the Clinton's are the only ones that know the words that can bring us all together.  Obama seems incapable of it but I do believe both Clinton's will do their job spectacularly.

    I didn't see all of Michelle's speech, (4.75 / 16) (#3)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:00:39 AM EST
    but did hear parts of it.  She certainly looked great, and her children are adorable; I've decided that they make a nice family - and that's great - but it has nothing to do with whether he's ready to be president.

    Here's the general problem for me: I listen to these people wax rhapsodic about Obama, and I keep having trouble putting together what they're saying with what he's said and done, how he's conducted this campaign, and his general resume, and it just doesn't compute.

    Last night, for example, I heard Michelle talking abut the values she and Barack were raised with: work hard, never go back on your word and always respect people, even when you disagree.  I don't see hard work, I haven't seen him keep his word, and, excuse me, but where's the respect?

    John Kerry reportedly said of Hillary's health care plan that it would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate, but there he was on the big screen last night, talking about Ted Kennedy and President Obama getting health care reform done.  Makes no sense to me.

    I guess I just don't see these wonderful things people keep saying - I almost feel like I do when I listen to Republicans, and this disconnect from my party is a new and very unwelcome feeling.  I want to be exited and energized, but it's just not there.

    never go back on your word (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by CHDmom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    I did not watch her speech, but when I saw "never go back on your word" replayed this morning, my first thought was FISA and him saying he would filibuster it.

    Bingo! Exactly my thought when I (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    heard her say it.  I'm sure there are others who thought also of his comments about public financing.

    No doubt we will be seeing some pushback in GOP ads fairly soon.


    Unbelievable (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    An argument this insulting to the intelligence of its audience ought to be saved for the Republican convention.

    When Obama pledged to support a filibuster of any bill that contained telecom immunity, he was only saying he would vote against cloture, not that he would vote against the actual bill?  That's the argument you seriously want to go with?  Frankly, I think if Obama were really the sort of guy to play cynical word games like that with voters who trusted him, that would be a reason not to support him.

    By the way, Obama most certainly did vote for cloture.  God, check your facts.


    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    Considering he didn't vote against cloture like you claimed, shouldn't you just give it up at this point?  Even if you insist we can only go by the hyperliteral interpretation of his pledge, he broke that too!

    Look, I have no idea if you can find a way to put lipstick on the FISA pig, but this laughable argument ain't it.  When a candidate makes an unequivocal pledge to the left during the Democratic primary, and then suddenly breaks it to take the more GE-friendly position as soon as the primary is over, we all know what happened.  None of us are stupid.  You can make all the wonderful speeches you want about how he all of a sudden realized compromise was the best solution, but no one will be fooled.


    What part of FISA (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    do you think was compromised by Obama?

    When it comes to things like privacy (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    rights and 4th Amendment protections, and for that matter, all the rights and privileges constitutionally guaranteed and protected, I would much prefer gridlock - the more the better - than "compromise," and would even more appreciate that someone who aspires to be the nation's leader understand that basic position - and hold onto it.

    But, clearly, you do not agree.


    You do understand tijeania (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Bluesage on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    That Bill Clinton's first month in office he was faced with great opposition and although it was flawed it was the best that could be done at that time for gay rights in the military.  I am hoping that some day soon we can give equal rights to ALL people in this country and stop this nonsense but if you are expecting Obama to stand up for gay rights I think you will be sorely disappointed.  

    There is no comparison here with Obama's flip-flop on his FISA vote.  Apples and Oranges.


    A very important addition to that argument (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:24:32 PM EST
    Is that the compromise Clinton agreed to in 1993 was a step Forward for individual rights.  The compromise vote that Obama cast was a step Backwards.

    Nothing changed (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    except the fact that we moved from the primary to the GE.

    Maybe you think Bill Clinton gave up too easily on DADT.  But there can be no doubt that he tried.  He spent a ton of political capital on that campaign promise, he got clobbered for it, in the end he accepted a compromise.

    Where is the evidence that Barack Obama did anything whatsoever to try and keep his promise?  Where did he spend the political capital?  What kind of hit did he take?  As soon as the primary ended, it was like "oh, you know what, I've changed my mind on this and think we should compromise."  What a funny coincidence that he just happened to realize the importance of compromise as soon as the primary ended!  You can swallow it if you like, but the rest of us are not fools.

    And I would like to see some acknowledgment that you offered a defense of Obama - the ridiculous "he only promised to vote against cloture, not the bill itself" that was just factually false.  Instead you just plow ahead with the argument without realizing you've already destroyed your own credibility.  You may think we're stupid, but we're not.


    The kind of campaign they (yes they) ran? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    And Michelle has the almighty nerve to talk about respect?

    More dishonesty....here's James Carville's (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    take on last night:

    On Monday, James Carville, who managed Bill Clinton's successful 1992 campaign, told CNN: "If this party has a message, it's done a hell of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that".

    After gwb, I cannot believe people can still be so easily duped, and by its own party, no less!!


    Make that more dishonesty out of the (none / 0) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    obama camp.

    you're right (4.22 / 9) (#13)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:54:30 AM EST
    For her to speak about Barack's values and him being respectful brings to mind the middle-finger salute/dust off his shoulder/wipe off his shoe combo which his adoring supporters laughed at and cheered about.

    Or calling that female reporter "sweetie".  Or ... actually, let me get more coffee in my system before I continue that almost exhaustive list.

    Any-hoo ...

    The NY Times had a blurb on a focus group made up equally of Obama Supporters, McCain Supporters and Undecideds the Annenberg Foundation had.  Twelve Coloradans and the only specific things they knew about Barack were that he was "intelligent" and that he played basketball.  That's it.  Pressed for more specifics, they couldn't come up with any.

    McCain was a "POW" and "straight talk" and had "experience".

    The upshot of this study was that Obama is not connecting with people on a visceral level.  He's more "Adlai Stevenson" than he is "Bill Clinton".

    It was an interesting, though not surprising, read.


    Obama (4.00 / 4) (#25)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    did not give anyone the finger. Obama did the dusting and off the shoe gestures specifically toward Charlie Gibson and Stephanopoulus' ridiculous time allotment in a debate toward nonsensical flagpin type questions. It was never even close to being directed at Hillary.
    These are the facts.
    As far as working hard, obama has campaigned in 48 states over an 18 month period. He has made more appearances in this campaign than any other candidate.

    Did you personally speak with (3.00 / 2) (#26)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    Obama to see what his "gestures" meant? We all saw what we saw, heard what he said, what he was speaking of at the time and the gestures he made.
    If he's campaigned in 48 states, and I believe it, then why isn't he doing better with the public then he is?

    People are entitled to interpret for (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    themselves what they see and hear, to form their own opinions about what things mean, and act accordingly.

    It's really not for you to judge whether someone is right or wrong to have come to the conclusions they have - I daresay there are an awful lot of people who are convinced that Hillary and Bill played the race card, that she faked her emotions in NH, that there is hidden meaning in everything they say and that she and Bill are just stirring up trouble at the convention.

    Are they right?  I don't think so, but that's my opinion.  Will my thinking those are the wrong conclusions force anyone to change their opinions?  Not likely.

    What's hard to take sometimes is the assumption that the support for Clinton is based on love, or is more anti-Obama than pro-Hillary, when in many cases, Hillary earned that support on her own merits and love had nothing to do with it.  When someone tells you that there basis for support is grounded in policy and performance, it really does not help to keep calling those people, in essence, liars, especially if what you are trying to do is rally support for Obama.  It's a bullying tactic that you ought to have been able to see by now is not a winning one.

    Finally, you may want to consider that the reason people have come to negative assumptions about some of the things Obama has said or done, or which have been said or done by his campaign staff and surrogates, is that the accumulation of these things forms a pattern that is difficult to ignore, and over time, harder to ascribe innocent or inadvertent motives to.


    I don't need to speak with Obama (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:46:29 AM EST
    I "saw" the tape from numerous different angles. I saw it in slow-motion.  He didn't give her the finger.  That is a fact.  It is my undertanding that Jeralyn, BTD and TChris agree that the finger thing is a non-issue because it didn't happen.  

    Better to ask yourself why you want to spread such disinformation.  If Obama is such a weak candidate, then why do you have to invent things about him?    


    Where do I start? Let me do it (3.25 / 4) (#44)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    this way, as you say, "it's been months and months" so why did you bring it up again?
    You said it as tho' you had privy to know. There is no rage here. What there is, however, is the American Way of determining for each of us, by ourselves, based on what we see, hear, feel, interpret, challenge, and question  (yes, question) the policies, ideas, qualifications, theories, perceptions, intrepretations and the like to see if this is a fit for us. For some, Obama is a fit, for some Obama is a compromise, for some, Obama is not quite acceptable for them yet, and, for some, Obama is totally unacceptable to vote for. The last time I checked, the United States Consitution allowed me (in fact it allowed me many years ago,today)to vote for the candidate of my choice. I respect your choice to vote as you will, please respect mine.

    Well (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by sas on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    because there is nothing to Obama.  The Democratic party is about to nominate a candidate who stands for nothing.

    It enrages me because we had a candidate who had issues, had proposals, who cared about the common man....and now we have this nothing.


    It wasn't John Kerry who dumped on (none / 0) (#15)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:42:33 AM EST
    Hillary's health care plan, it was the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  Thanks to his interference, the plan never got hearings, never got a vote.

    Kennedy has been a soldier for health care for eons; he keeps plugging away in spite of little progress.  As for Kerry, I don't think it has been a priority for him, but I may be mistaken.


    I wasn't referring to the 1993 plan - (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:47:51 AM EST
    I was referring to comments Kerry made this year, during the primary, and that's what made his comments in the tribute film so hard to take.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#38)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    I thought it was Moynihan who had originally used the term "dead on arrival" when he stood in the way of Clinton's health care plan.

    It will be his, of course, (none / 0) (#97)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    and it will be awesome.  Gridlock from your earlier post.  I think Obama will compromise quite nicely -

    What was said and unsaid (4.66 / 12) (#9)
    by Chgohunt on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:36:22 AM EST
    What I heard from Michelle last night was platitudes.  She is an attractive, smart representative of her husband's campaign, but she is not a public speaker, and as a U of C professor myself, I am definitely sure she is no public servant -- just ask the community she worked with in Woodlawn and Kenmore about that.  She is also tamed to an inch of her life at this point; a sad commentary on who she likely really is.  But most galling, despite some of the picture perfectness projected that made one go "ah," is that she not only did not state that they are truly Democrats at any point, but she also indicated repeatedly that Barack "does not believe in" the differences between the two parties -- she all but stated that he refuses to acknowledge that the US is divided by political affiliation, as it truly is.  That bodes poorly for so many reasons when I think about it.  Because that just takes us right back where Nader went in 2000.  And it is so terribly wrong now.  There is no argument for Obama if that is the approach to be taken.

    A sadly unmoving start to the convention for this now depressed Democratic party voter.

    Does U of C (none / 0) (#40)
    by sher on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    have a campus in the "Kenmore" community?  Where is that community?

    a U of C alum


    Respect? Keep your word? (4.00 / 4) (#49)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:19:36 AM EST
    It made me sick as I remembered

    • her brother's awful comments about Clinton;
    • her awful comments about Clinton;
    • Obama's backing away from so many of his promises;
    • Obama's race-baiting and smearing of the Clintons during the campaign.

    It's too much to stand, really.

    While I didn't hear Michelle's (3.00 / 4) (#1)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:45:21 AM EST
    speech en masse, I did see parts and I saw the "family" gathering. First, the children were beautiful. Second, Michelle touched the right tone with her appearance and the campaign's theme of "change" was rampant in her speech. She no longer sounded angry, or flipant, or harsh, she just sounded "changed." All flowers and candy. Third, no mention of where they both went to college. We see the convention antics reminiscent of the gestopo era and we are supposed to forget all that and believe they are just one, average, just like me and you, american family. Sorry, I didn't buy it. Thought Teddy looked great, glad he could make it.

    zfran's remarks are disgusting (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dem08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:24:11 AM EST
    First 'gestopo' is spelled "Gestapo"

    But Second, why  does TalkLeft promote this kind of personal hatred of the Obama's shown amply in zfran's post?

    I don't get it. I understand the 18 Million Hillary Voters will magically subsume the Obama supporters when this Civil War ends with A McCain Victory, but

    'gestopo' and Michelle "not mentioning" her school? Was Wellsley a Community College?

    What does an anti-Obama comment have to do to be called out here?


    Well, giving every comment you (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    deem anti-Obama a "1" rating isn't the way to do it, and is, in fact a violation of the site rules.

    As for personal hatred being expressed in  comments, you might want to read your own before you go judging what others are writing.


    OOOOH Snap, Anne....as you can see (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    the obamacans are out in full force these days, hoping to turn the losing tide for obama.  They think that downrating will really make us want to come over to their side, I guess.  :)

    also (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by dem08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    since you are a student of TalkLeft's policies, is this a sentence Jeralyn would be proud to be associated with:

    "the obamacans are out in full force these days, hoping to turn the losing tide for obama. "  

    That would fit any Town Hall or McCain site nicely, Senator Clinton support or no.


    dem08....hope that makes you feel better. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    Maybe I will send it over to the McCain campaign to see if they would like to use it. s/
    Honestly, you need to take a chill pill.  Some of us aren't supporting obama; get used to it.  And you will have to ask Jeralyn about that sentence.  If she doesn't like it, trust me, she will not hesitate to delete it.

    Totally different... (none / 0) (#82)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:14:20 PM EST
    ...than what you do all the time though, right?  

    it is NOT a violation (1.00 / 2) (#76)
    by dem08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:01:41 PM EST
    of TalkLeft policy to nurture hatred and use Nazi references to describe the Obama's


    I actually feel sorry for the joyless Hillary throngs here. Earlier this season while I was still voting for Hillary, I voted for each Clinton twice, have no Obama predisposition, I told Big Tent that this election reminded me of 1968 where the party tore itself in two.

    It, the Party, has. Calling Obama an eltist because he went to a good school, as did Hillary and Bill, seems preposterous.

    Calling the Obama's "gestopo" is a disgrace for a so-called "left" site. Sorry to be the one to break it to some of you die hards.


    the talk of Morning Joe is all about (none / 0) (#7)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:10:38 AM EST
    the lack of Bush attack last night.

    She did not say that (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
    She said that she shared a room with her brother.

    I remember hearing (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    that Al Gore had to share a room with his sister too. They lived in a residence hotel in DC because his dad was a Senator and went to Tn in the summer.
    The building has since been turned into a luxury hotel so when Gore ran in 2000 the Republicans made a big deal about his growing up in a luxury hotel, when in fact the place was quite modest when he lived there. And our "liberal media"never corrected them.
    I know to younger people it sounds like your family was destitute if brothers and sisters had to share rooms but it wasn't all that uncommon especially in places where housing was expensive. My brother and I also shared a room for a few years when we were young, but my family was in no way hard up.

    She Didn't Talk About Sharing A Room (none / 0) (#84)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    Her brother talked about how their parents divided a bedroom so they could each have their own room.

    And it wasn't talked about as an example of their 'poor, South Side apartment' but rather as an example of his closeness with his sister.

    The quote:

    "When we were young kids, our parents divided the bedroom we shared so we could each have our own room.

    "Many nights we would talk when we were supposed to be sleeping."



    The best line (none / 0) (#65)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    of her speech for me was this:

    "...this week, we celebrate two anniversaries: the 88th anniversary of women winning the right to vote, and the 45th anniversary of that hot summer day when Dr. King lifted our sights and our hearts with his dream for our nation.

    I stand here today at the crosscurrents of that history."

    Nope, sorry. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    I disagree that it was "just a scratch."  

    I had just started reading here at TL when that incident occurred, and I distinctly remember BTD stating that it was ridiculous for anyone to think that Senator Obama was deliberating flipping anyone the bird.  I was awed and intimidated by BTD and Jeralyn (still am) and, as something of a political newbie, inclined to take their word for things like this. So I viewed the video with a bias toward believing Senator Obama didn't really do anything but scratch his face.

    Once I actually watched the video? Try as I might, the only interpretation I could make was that he was flipping Clinton off. I can't/couldn't see any other interpretation of that action.  None. I asked at least a dozen friends and family members (most of whom are completely apolitical) what they thought, and they unanimously agreed that he was definitely flipping somebody off in that video.

    Obviously, reasonable people can disagree :)