A Historic Night

Tonight, Barack Obama will accept the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. It is a historic night. Obama will become the first African American major party candidate for the Presidency.

Ironically, to increase his chances to become the first African American President of the United States, Obama is likely to place less emphasis on the historic nature of his candidacy then the rest of us are. But, on the most basic level, the history will be inescapable. Today is the 45th Anniversary of the Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech ("1963 is not an end, but a beginning"):

More . . .

It will be a feel good moment for the country but Obama has, rightly, in my view, been wary of being labelled as the "black candidate." I expect Obama will of course give the occasion its due but will not dwell on it.

Obama has some interesting choices and challenges tonight. He is a terrific set speech speaker, so prepare to be wowed.

I tell you what I will be interested to see, how much Obama decides to talk about the "glass ceiling." Maybe not at all. Maybe a lot.

Will he talk all change? Dancing with the one that brought him? Will it be the Iowa speech all over again?

Or will he try to connect with working class voters in Clintonesque populist fashion? Will he talk about foreign policy chops and specifics?

The history tonight is alluring. And rightly so. But the political junkie in me is interested in seeing the choices Obama the politician, not Obama the historic figure, makes tonight.

It is all very intriguing.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: Sunset Grill (A Thank You to CNN) | Quote Of The Day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Perhaps his speech pattern (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    is your cup of tea, but personally, I have not been intrigued, nor inspired by anything he has said from the beginning of his campaign. I know you believe this is the rheteric you expect to hear from me, BTD, however, after seeing BC deliver his speech, some via teleprompter, should be part of lesson 101 of how to read using such a tool. How to connect to one's audience and read at the same time. Historic, yes, it only makes him "historic" not necessarily qualified to be president. I thought BC gave an absolutely brilliant speech last night, one he not only "had" to give for his legacy, and the dem party, but to show the world what real strength, resolve, skill-set, temperment and intellect it takes to take on the job and how to relate to all people, not just the young and elitists.


    I thougaht it was a (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:49:44 AM EST
    pedestrian effort by Bill Clinton, given his standards.

    I agree.... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM EST
    ...the speech itself was somewhat pedestrian, but the not-so-hidden subtext of "you can't keep the big dawg down" was marvelous.

    Bill Clinton's speech said: See, I'm not a bad guy (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:31:31 AM EST
    But another thing WJC does so well is explain things. Carville said Bill likes to be in teacher-mode when he makes speeches.

    I agree (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by kayla on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:57:10 AM EST
    although, I still liked Bill's speech better than most Obama's speeches.  Bill has a conversation with you... Obama just uses cliches and banalities to talk about himself in this fake southern preacher accent.  I don't get the appeal at all.  Actually, I wasn't going to watch his speech tonight, but Bill's speech encouraged me to do so.

    Even Obama's Big Speech Cadence is wearing (4.25 / 4) (#74)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:37:53 AM EST
    on me. It goes like this:

    low HIGH low HIGH low HIGH low HIGH low HIGH low HIGH
    lo HI lo HI
    low HIGH low HIGH low HIGH low HIGH low HIGH
    low HIGH low low.

    and NOW is the TIME when the RISE OF THE OCEANS beGAN to SLOW
    and the SICK beGAN to HEAL
    NOW is the TIME when the POOR got JOBS and HOPE
    and THIS GREAT WORLD came together.


    When Bill Clinton gets a better (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:57:13 AM EST
    reception from the delegates then Obama making a "surprise" visit himself, it strikes me as being more than a pedestrian effort, but that's just my opinion.

    Only pedestrian by Bill's lofty standards. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:00:04 AM EST
    Imagine the speech he would have given for Hillary and compare it to this. He did all and more than was required, but he did it with one hand tied behind his back and it was still great. That's what I meant by pedestrian. BTD, of course, likely meant something a bit different.

    I agree with your comment about (4.00 / 4) (#31)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:07:31 AM EST
    Hillary and what BTD probably meant. In fact, the only part of Bill's speech that I found disengenuous was when he said that Obama is ready to take the oath of office to protect and defend the constitution. Obama has already countered that, imo.

    So (none / 0) (#32)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM EST
    You think Bill was lying?

    Perhaps Bill doesn't feel as (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:12:27 AM EST
    I do, perhaps he was caught up in the moment, perhaps, perhaps....he needed to rouse the crowd, that was his job and he did it. I believe he knew what he said.

    Bill "I did not have (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by frenly on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    sexual relations with that woman" Clinton is a master of parsed speech.  Obama is technically ready and capable of taking the oath of office, so it is not a lie.

    As for me... I have mixed feelings about Obama winning the nomination.  As an AA, I can't help but feel a swell of pride, but it is unfortunately mixed with a sinking feeling of disgust because of his (in my opinion) lack of qualification and the underhanded campaign he ran.  The whole thing seems to confirm the worst the right wing says about affirmative action putting unqualified minorities in positions.  I've always fought against that argument and danggit if the Democrats didn't go and do exactly that.


    Yes Bill was lying (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    Dems friggin' voted for FISA. sheesh.

    I agree. (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:02:05 AM EST
    He's done much better speeches. It sounded to me like Obama's campaign gave him a laundry list of Obama's electoral problems and told him to solve them in a speech.

    the only thing Obama wanted Clinton to say (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:13:42 AM EST
    was 'Obama is qualified to be president.' Not because Obama "needed" Clinton's approval, but because he needs Hillary supporters.
    In the meantime, Obama allows the "Clintons are racists" narrative to continue...

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:43:04 AM EST
    Obama got to see copies of both Clinton's speeches but his team wasn't involved in the writing or editing process.  

    Reading (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    is your friend. I never said they wrote the speech only that it sounded like something they would have put forward for Bill to say that's all.

    Why did they even need to see copies?


    Even (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:51:41 AM EST
    The convention media gets advance copies so they don't have to write everything down while trying to guage crowd response, etc.  I'm just trying to counter this "they made Bill say it," "The fix is in," nonesense.

    I don't think they "made" him (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    say it.  I think he had two choices for his career and legacy: be a pol or walk away.

    If I had been more or less forced (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:35:44 AM EST
    to give a speech expressing support for a candidate whose campaign had trashed my spouse and sullied my legacy, "pedestrian" would reflect an effort of herculean proportions.

    pedestrian speech by Bill (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:27:53 AM EST
    it did seem that way didnt it.  it was great of course but it seems a bit like he was lipsyncing or treading water or something.
    he was good though.
    reminded us all how much we miss the 90s.

    I thought just the opposite (none / 0) (#188)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    and do not even think of comparing them anymore.

    Hillary's speech was different and I think for what she said and how she saved Obama's butt, was historic.  

    Both of them are trying to save the Democratic Party
    Only time will tell.


    Bill vs. Hill (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    I actually thought that Hillary gave the quintessential speech.  She had command of the stage and the audience.

    The DNC decided (4.42 / 7) (#11)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:52:38 AM EST
    long before any of the primary contests that Obama would be the nominee this year. The choice of date for the convention with his speech "coincidentally" happening on the anniversary of MLK's speech is just too convenient. We have been repeatedly told that Obama is a "brilliant orator" yet he puts half of us into teeth grinding mode. I turn off the sound whenever he's speaking and choose to read the text of his speeches instead. Tonight will be a giant farce complete with the image of the gods and Mount Olympus. I have no problem with the DNC spending their money on this circus, but I do object to my tax dollars paying for a primary that was a sham.

    Gimme a break (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by eustiscg on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:03:33 AM EST
    The majority of the DNC was appointed by Bill Clinton, and Hillary was consistently miles ahead of Obama among DNC endorsers.  There's a fine line between understanding and paranoia.  Facts make all the difference.

    And (3.28 / 7) (#42)
    by tek on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:13:38 AM EST
    being able to see the forest for the trees is priceless.  This was a fix.  Obama told people that himself.

    Ok, explain: (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by eustiscg on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:20:32 AM EST
    How exactly was this first-term senator able to fix a primary where his opponent owned the party machinery and her own advisers (Ickes chief among them) crafted the primary rules?

    There are valid arguments against Obama, but this one is its own reductio ad absurdum.


    Hillary won the primaries (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    That is, the venues that were open and much harder to get away with intimidation and bullying.  It wasn't the primaries that were fixed.  Were you not paying attention?  It was the caucuses that gave Obama the disproportionate voter-to-delegate counts.

    Howard Dean was certainly not appointed by Bill Clinton.  Most of the top DNC people have moved into their posts long since Bill was president.  Most of the DNC isn't appointed anyway.  Get your facts right before you start accusing other people of making stuff up.


    It's OK. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    I may be paranoid, but I'm in good company.

    "This is the Nineties, Bubba, and there is no such thing as Paranoia. It's all true."
    - Hunter S Thompson


    Well - the Dems are breaking rules, (4.20 / 5) (#24)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:00:14 AM EST
    trashing usual procedures, counting votes like a Diebold machine, purging party loyalists, etc. - whatever it takes to nominate an African American.
    And the corporate media will complete the deed by carrying him over the finish line in Nov.

    Sorry, Dr. King - the Dems and Obama have made it about race, not character.


    The media? (3.66 / 3) (#28)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:03:55 AM EST
    Not sure they'll be helping him at all. All they can talk about is the Hillary supporters who won't vote for Obama.

    If anything, they are helping the Republican cause by demonstrating this divide among Democratic voters.

    Sure, it exists, but if they were looking to rally behind Obama, they'd stop talking about that.


    media pundits rarely miss an opportunity (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:20:23 AM EST
    to sow their CDS. This is about continuing their Hillary hate and showing how evil Hillary supporters are hurting Obama. Some even posit Hillary is preventing her supporters from supporting Obama.

    So did you think (none / 0) (#144)
    by Faust on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST
    that Bill Clinton was lying when he said he thought that Barack Obama was ready to be President?

    He's a politician... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    he lies for a living.

    He is the new kid (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:48:08 AM EST
    and is an unknown quantity to many Americans. They know who the "maverick" is, but they don't know the changester. What is it he'll change? How will that change effect Americans? Who are you?

    The door for change is ajar, the bush legacy of incompetence and confusion have made it so. The game is set. Voters are less likely to reward the apparent heir, John McCain, for the disappointments of the last eight years unless they find it hard to trust Obama.

    The last two nights in Denver have cleared the way for him, unity is his. Now the man from change needs to sidle up to the voters and give them some confidence there trust will not be betrayed, that he won't f**k up their lives or their future.

    He's been running for president (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:53:26 AM EST
    for 18 months now dueling it out in the longest primary in history. He has made what some called an historic trip to europe and spoke to crowds in Berlin of (they say)200,000 people. He has erected a seal for himself, changed logos on his plane to reflect more of a presidential image, he's kept his name in the news (if the above wasn't sufficient)by all of his changes to his positions and his vote "against" the consitution (see FISA), etal, and at the end of August, with 2 months until the actual election, he has to introduce himself to the electorate? How ludicrous. It took until the latter part of day 2 of the convention and then day 3 to get the ball rolling. This "skill" set to organize and inform is seriously lacking, imho.

    While this has been (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Lahdee on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:09:29 AM EST
    a long and contentious process most of America hasn't been paying the level of attention folks like us junkies have. They're much to busy to care that BO put a ridiculous sticker on his podium or that he and Bill Clinton can't stand each other. And when FISA and it's consequences come up, I see blank stares.
    After months and months of reading and listening, of opinion and nuance we have a pretty good idea of know who's who and what is what.  There are, however, questions that need to be answered for the populace, such as who is this guy and what can I expect from him.
    If he can't do that, if he can't connect to them, if he can't set a level of confidence and trust he can't win.

    He has campaigned in all 50 states (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:15:33 AM EST
    (or 57 and he once said). I agree the political junkies know alot more, however, for the "some" who may not really know who he is, they probably are not even watching. And, if they are, they will not only see this candidate, they will see all the glitz, the glamour, the hype. Will they really see and hear HIM!?

    As tp 57. do remember PR, Samoa, guam , DC, the (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    Dems Abroad, American Virgin Islands,  and that batch of Islands off Taiwan, all of whom you saw vote and all of whom were separate constituencies but not technically states. 57 may be the right number of Dem constituencies as if states.

    Tired of people blaming (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:57:42 AM EST
    the "stupid" voters or the "low information" voters or the "racist" voters.

    You can't gerrymander the presidential election.  You can't cherry pick your voters.  You have to make your case to everyone from the CEOs to the minimum wage slaves.


    But he has picked (none / 0) (#192)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:30:15 AM EST
    his voters.  Brilliant plan, to get college and younger voters because that is his base.

    The McCain campaign will try to make sure the "low info" voters get to know everything about him only exaggerated.


    Obama isn't (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:10:32 AM EST
    where I think he should be on gay marriage, BUT, his position is much more humane than McCain's.  Here is an article

    Obama's letter to Pride celebrants

    that you might find worth your time.  

    I think his congratulations to the married couples are a nice touch.  He's not 100% where we need him to be, but he is on his way.


    Yawn (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by dk on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    In 2008, a Democratic candidate gay-baited to win the nomination.  His name:  Barack Obama.

    No amount of spinning will ever change that.


    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    gay-baited this year:

    McCain Accused Of Gay Baiting In Anti-Romney Attack

    He doesn't even trust us to raise children.  How sick is that?


    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by ks on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:14:23 AM EST
    This "Obama has to introduce himself to the public because most people aren't paying attention like us political junkies" is weak tea. It's just spin designed to cover the fact that despite the massive coverage he's received most of the past year, he's, frankly, underperforming.

    It's a truth being used as an excuse (none / 0) (#115)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    People do not have the many years of familiarity with Obama that they have with other candidates. He and the DNC should have recognized that as a handicap.

    No, the nomination is his. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:53:38 AM EST
    There is no unity.

    Sham vote, sham unity. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:05:16 AM EST
    The DNC keeps on passing up opportunities for real unity.  This is Obama's final shot at it.  

    At minimum he must:
    Sincerely praise Bill & Hillary Clinton and their accomplishments.
    Act like a capital D Democrat and not some bipostpartisan Barney.

    There's more, but I can't get it phrased correctly.  


    There is truly nothing Obama (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:12:31 AM EST
    can say in one speech that will unify the Democratic Party. It's been "Humpty Dumptied". Every opportunity to reach across the schism has been sh@t on.

    VP Hillary Clinton? (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    Sure I'm dreaming, but it's an example of what Obama could do if he actually wanted to.

    That's the crux - if he wants to.  The evidence so far is that party unity is low on his list of priorities.


    It is a historic moment..... (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:53:13 AM EST
    His nomination has meant a great deal to many people, you can see it in their faces. I can get behind that and I am happy for the African American community, my own dear spouse and children included. What it means to them I do not want to diminish in any way with my own doubts about the Democratic party nominating process. So today is my day to be supportive and hold my tongue about those that drive me insane...including the "with-friends-like-these' quartet of Brazile, Dean, Pelosi, and Clyburn.

    that is a very thoughtful (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Jgarza on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:28:57 AM EST

    I want to feel and act as you (none / 0) (#193)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    but I am not there.  I know AA's are proud but so would women have been if a a female were candidate.  Yes it is historic and about time. It is just that it is him.

    There is also not doubt in my mind that Colin Powell would have been president if he had run back when.


    I hope he does not emulate King (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:53:40 AM EST
    He needs to be different and not borrow from the past.  He has a tendency to emulate other great leaders but I feel its takes away from any originality.  

    He used a lot of King's sayings in his speeches during the primaries and incorporated them in his own.

    He wanted to run from a senator to the presidency.  Something only Kennedy accomplished if I am not mistaken

    He went to speak in Berlin trying to copy Kennedy again in the famous I am a Berliner speech

    He wanted to speak in a stadium just like Kennedy did.  Only  FDR and Kennedy had done it.

    He needs to be unique and his own man.


    Warren G. Harding Too (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by gtesta on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    Only 2 sitting senators were elected president.
    But your point is well taken.  This will be a dealmaker or dealbreaker speech for a lot of people.

    His own (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:06:54 AM EST
    man. Yes, that's the key. Quit trying to copy everyone else and be an original.

    News said he'll combine JFK, Reagan, Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#78)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    seriously, I read that somewhere.

    and somewhere (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:55:41 AM EST
    in that mix will be Obama, fully realizing he in no way measures up to any of those men ... even Reagan, who I despise.

    Maybe this amalgamation of Political Greatest Hits in order to further bury his Reasons to Vote For Me message is what he meant by Unity?


    Reagan? (none / 0) (#195)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    an economic disaster.  Worst recession I lived through until the coming one.

    He's supposed to clean up after the Republicans, not emulate them.  jeesh.

    Obama is also going to have Republicans in his cabinet, which may not be a bad thing, but it depends how far he goes...if he is elected that is.


    Probably fit Lincoln and FDR in the (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:41:33 AM EST
    mix too.

    And now here he is... (none / 0) (#205)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    on the mountaintop of Kennedy's New Frontier.

    Now what?

    This speech will make or break this adventure.


    The challenge will be... (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by EL seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:55:47 AM EST
    ... whether he can inspire those people who are watching the speech tonight to become active citizens who will work for a better America and willingly pay for the privlege, or if the viewers remain happy spectators who are content that a historic moment has arrived but unwilling to make any of the sacrifices that will be needed to actually improve the condition of America 2008.

    Well, he's already inspired (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:01:36 AM EST
    millions of long time Democrats to vote for John McCain. Let's see if he adds to those numbers or decreases them tonight. I am eagerly awaiting the "convention bounce".

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#23)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:00:07 AM EST
    I think the young people were infatuated with him in the beginning, but through the long primary process lost interest (like they do the latest fad).

    I'm going to be queasy when Will I Am performs that god awful "Yes We Can" song. It was a good speech sure, but it's not poetry.


    I don't disagree that there is importance (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:22:53 AM EST
    attached to the first non-white person accepting the nomination of the Democratic Party, and I certainly think it deserves acknowledgment.  

    Care needs to be taken that we do not see this moment as proof that we don't still have much work to do from the bottom up in order to make this kind of achievement possible for anyone who aspires to it.  Certainly, seeing a person of color accepting this honor is an inspiration to the black community, but it also makes people take a look around and see how much work still needs to be done across racial, ethnic and gender lines.  The presidency may be a symbol of the American Dream, but the real dream that most people want for themselves and their families is pretty basic: a decent home, a good education, a good job.  If he's smart, he will hit those economic points hard - but I wish there were a way he could do it without the "single mother on food stamps," because I think that's ripe for the GOP to exploit with the truth of his mother's circumstances.

    Had Obama chosen Clinton to be his VP, there would have been an unbelievably historic moment where, with a black man and a woman standing on our largest stage, we could to declare that it was finally time to be one people, with universal needs and dreams, and put an end to seeing only the things that make us different from each other.

    Oh, well.

    In general, I'm just tired of Obama and the hype and the hope, and I think that while those who attend the Invesco Investiture will no doubt have a spectacular time, it may be more anticlimactic than the party had hoped, and I think they have not even begun to hear the criticism for the excess.  I had really hoped to be celebrating my birthday watching Hillary Clinton give a roof-raising acceptance speech tonight, so I guess I will just have to have an extra piece of cake, instead.

    Happy Birthday, Anne. Let (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:28:54 AM EST
    me add a bottle of champaigne (or whatever is your taste)to have with your extra piece of cake. I, too, am tired of hearing about the hype and the hope. No matter what sort of speech he makes tonight, no matter what he says, no matter what he promises, no matter how much confetti is thrown, he's had more than ample time to let us know who he is and how he will govern. If he changes that message now, then which part of Obama is the truth?!

    Make the cake chocolate ;-) (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    Happy Birthday, Anne! (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST

    Good post (none / 0) (#203)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    I have a pet theory that folks like Andrew Sullivan (he of the "Bell Curve") support Obama at least in part because they think it will give them an excuse to get rid of affirmative action.  The idea being if a black man can be president, it's proof that there are no barriers based on race

    Sort of the same people who thought that because J. K. Rowling lifted herself out of welfare, it was proof we should get rid of welfare.  "See? Single moms could just write 'Harry Potter' if only we kicked them off the dole!"


    Was last night any measuring tool? (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:26:56 AM EST

      If the lame reception Obama got when he came out on the stage with Biden is any indicator of the strength of the ticket then yes Obama should worry.

    Hilary and Bill got the ovations that Obama with Biden should have gotten.

    I suspect the Hillary/Bill speeches (none / 0) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:36:54 AM EST
    were stacked with Hillary/Bill supporters. Maybe they stuck around for Biden, but were inherently tepid for Obama.  That's my explanation, anyway.  Aren't I generous ;-)?

    Well, the delegates can't be switched out (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    and I really don't see this campaign stage managing anything in Bill or Hillary's favor.  Otherwise they would have gotten Bill a speaking spot during the network coverage window.

    I think the ovation Bill got for just walking out on stage, when he couldn't get them to stop applauding was in big part the Clinton delegates real roll call vote, not the unity-pressurized fake one.

    Obama should be so lucky to match it, even having stacked Invesco with 70,000 fans in his favor.


    well, unless the 70,000 (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    are there for a Bon Jovi concert before he speaks and a Bruce Springsteen acoustic set afterward.

    The Acceptance speech may be used by some to hit the can or make an under-the-radar beer run before the REAL Boss hits the stage.

    Just sayin'



    Given the "historic nature" (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:32:38 AM EST
    of this anniversary day coinciding with nomination day, it's a good thing they didn't nominate the woman or a white guy....phew, dodged a bullet there!

    Given such a "coincidence", it's hard to have any doubt that the DNC fix was in.  But maybe I'm just a cynic.

    But (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:48:20 AM EST
    since Biden pretty much said Obama is a psychic who was proven right about everything, I bet he was consulted in advance as to the most auspicious date for the convention to be held. Kind of like when Cheney was the head of the VP selection committee.

    The dates (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    for the convention were set in November of 2005, so there is no way anyone knew then who would be on that podium.

    And, first choice for convention dates always goes to the party of the sitting president.  With the Olympics also set for this year, no one wanted to have to go before the Olympics, the GOP definitely wanted the last word, and the GOP's September choice pretty much guaranteed they would get it.

    Now, that doesn't mean that when Obama came on the scene someone didn't think it would be just-so-perfect if he were the nominee accepting on the MLK speech anniversary, but it might be stretching it to think the whole thing was built around it.


    Are you forgetting (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    Obama's "greatest speech evah" at the DNC convention in 2004?

    I think he was their candidate as far back as that.


    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:49:15 AM EST
    At the time it was obvious that he was being groomed for the role. He came off really well that night and I said as much after his speech, just as I did when I first saw Bill Clinton in the very first Dem roundtable in 1992. Funny about first impressions, I thought Obama was really incredible and someone who would really go places, where as I didn't like Clinton but thought he would still go places because he stood out from the pack.

    However, I thought Obama would at least finish out at least one term in the Senate before running, let alone nabbing the nomination.


    I am moved by the history (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:45:17 AM EST
    Moreso yesterday when the nomination happened.  That was one reason I wished they had done the whole roll call. Why speed through the real historic event? It should have been treated with more respect, both for Clinton and Obama, two 'firsts' in the final nomination process.

    historic indeed (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Klio on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    I only wish I could take greater pleasure in it.  Sigh....  I took my 10 year old son to vote with me in the primary, b/c I wanted him to see the Democratic ballot:  a woman, an african-american, a hispanic &c. &c. &c.  But that sense of wonder and pride has really been squelched.

    I find I am at fierce odds with myself: proud of my party for this amazing achievement, and horrified by the mechanics behind it.  

    And bitter, I'm feeling bitter too.  Stupid, spoiling party - stepping all over the unalloyed satisfaction I wish I were feeling.

    I guess the sad part (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by dk on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:49:17 AM EST
    is that this historic moment had to come on the back of corruption within the Democratic party, the compromise of Democratic principles, misogony, and homophobia.

    In my mind, there will always be an asterisk next to Obama's name for the above reasons.  But I admit I was trained as an historian, not a politician, so I'm not big into getting over things.  I remember them.

    The funny thing is that where I have lived throughout my life, there have been black state and federal officeholders, and none of them had to resort to the shameful tactics, or hold the shameful beliefs, that Obama does.

    More of these "shameful tactics" (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by reality based on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    may be used in the future.  They worked.  I have seen them used in intraparty contests before-- never with such spectacular success.  I attribute that success to the fortuitous (for Obama) coincidence that many Democratic politicians were afraid to run with Hillary on the ticket and that the antiwar faction (of which I counted myself a member) had to take their frustrations out on someone.  I also believe that Obama successfully signaled to certain financial interests with ties to the Democratic Party that he's going to be OK and that they were willing to overlook the playing of the race card.

    Great leaders: brave deeds matched inspiring words (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    Dr King, Gandhi, Mandela were community organizers who didn't relent in their commitment to human rights and social justice for all.

    The bravery and commitment were there for all to see whether these leaders were very young remarkable men around the age of, say, your average first time voter, or as lifelong beacons of inspiration in the sunset of their lives.

    They didn't cloud their vision of equality and justice for all with qualifying nonsense like Except women, who'll have to wait fifty years when it jeopardize my cred with fellow misogynists in the news media or

    The enemy will be determined using monitor gamma, tears analysis by my campaign manager, and a sliding scale of skin color swatches.

    Leaders are known as leaders for a reason: they're bravely out in front when the goon squad is out cracking heads and debris is being thrown but not so much when the appause signs are blinking and awards are being given.

    Mascots and pitchmen are the opposite: they hide behind proxies who do the dirty work of stirring up needless enmity so the Star of the Show can go over set design schematics and practice pausing for applause points.

    This isn't the Obama I figured I'd support wholeheartedly when my initial choices were illegitimately removed from the nomination race, but it's The One revealed during the process, and The One the New Dems are putting out there now, without the apparent need of my support or vote.

    The best I can offer him is no hard feelings and good luck in the last laps to the White House.

    Just as I'm disappointed that the first woman Speaker of the House had to be Nancy Pelosi, I'm disappointed that the first African American President might be Barack Obama.

    Not Dr Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King, Shirley Chisolm, or Barbara Jordan.

    I'll still wish him luck, though, and watch with interest but no enmity from my neutral corner.

    Well said (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:16:14 AM EST
    The idea of Obama has a leader has a forced quality to it.  I've said before that I beleive the highest ranking Dems knew they needed a charismatic leader, got a look at Obama at the 2004 convention, and decided he would be that leader. His actual leadership skills or experience didn't matter at all. More than anything it reminds me of the way GWB got elected.

    Great quote (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by ks on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:29:52 AM EST
    Just as I'm disappointed that the first woman Speaker of the House had to be Nancy Pelosi, I'm disappointed that the first African American President might be Barack Obama.

    Not Dr Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King, Shirley Chisolm, or Barbara Jordan.

    What irritates me to no end about the MLK Jr et al comparison is what you mentioned earlier about leaders.  Those folks led and put their lives on the line to make things better for us all.  What has Obama ever led?  What bold or brave positions has he ever taken?  He's riding the wave created by the work of others, including the maligned JJ Sr., and pretending he has interited their mantle.  


    Apples and Oranges.... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    King, Ghandi, Mandela....these great men campaigned for jail cells, not political office.  It's pointless to compare politicians to leaders of protest movements...apples and oranges.

    Many protest leaders later served as politicians (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    It's not apples and oranges, but remarkable people. You're actually proving my point, in a roundabout way. Maybe it's because we (the UnRoyal We, as in society in general) have learned to accept the continual lowering of the bar of responsibility from our elected officials, who treat the Senate and House as some kind of private spa where the public trust and Constitution no longer matter.

    The list of elected officials who were at the forefront of human rights, anti-war and labor movements is actually too long to post here. Many who were involved historically ground-breaking actions are serving today, and shamefully looking the other way at what the Democrats as a party has become.


    Campaigned for jail cells? (none / 0) (#197)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:54:06 AM EST
    That is pretty dismissive I think.

    Barbara Jordan did not campaign for a jail cell.  Shirley Chisolm did not either. They were great leaders.


    Is BO08 still a 'movement'? If so, ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM EST
    ... will he reveal where it is going?

    If not, will he confess the 'movement' rhetoric was just a gimmick?

    Obama's historic nomination (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Lowtideppm on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
      He trashed the Democratic party in  order to get the Democratic nomination.

      (Couldn't talk up the successful administration of the last Democrat elected to 2 terms since his opponent was too closely associated with that.)

      Then he  chooses as VP a pro-war Washington insider who can appeal to those working class low information voters without him (or them) being called Archie Bunker types.

      Oh, well.  That's politics. (Who knew?)

    No (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by zvs888 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    Except that the Democratic party is stronger at the grass-roots level than it has ever been before, so how does that make any sense?

    Registrations are way up due to Clinton and Obama's efforts in the primaries and even though it was bitterly contested, it got tons of voters that we need on the down-ticket Dems regardless of who's at the top.


    One of Obama's best moments in any ... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:54:15 AM EST
    of the debates was when he was asked, if MLK were alive, why should he endorse you?  

    Obama responded:

    I don't think Doctor King would endorse any of us. I think he would call on the American people to hold us accountable.

    That's probably the tone he should use when he deals with the anniversary issue.

    pfttttt! (4.75 / 8) (#47)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:15:35 AM EST
    For many, the bloom is decidedly off this "historic candidacy" rose.  

    It would truly be something to celebrate if he, by dint of his experience and his years of hard work successfully legislating for his constituents, becoming a much beloved and popular Senator because of his constant, consistent efforts, had rightfully earned the Nomination.

    As it stands now, he's on that Greek columned podium tonight only because he and his surrogates viciously mauling the backs of two long-term Democrats, told those who didn't vote for him -- after repeatedly losing those voters which comprise important sections of the Democratic Base -- that he didn't need their votes anyway and then STILL needed an un-Democratic and, frankly, embarrassingly obvious assist from his flying monkeys at the DNC to "win".

    The long-term consequences -- for not only the Democratic Party but for both race relations and gender equality in America -- of his short-sighted, greedy and desperately ham-handed actions remain to be seen in full.  

    But if his sliding poll numbers and anemic fundraising are any indication, I don't believe tonight is anything to celebrate.

    But, hey, as Barack said after he successfully removed (via the Courts) his mentor, Alice Palmer, -- as well as all his other opponents -- from the ballot in his first run for State Legislator, "If you can win, you should win".

    The (4.20 / 5) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:29:19 AM EST
    "historic candidacy" stuff is a real turnoff to me. It promotes the idea that whe should simply vote for him because of his race.

    Who knows what he's going to say? If he plays to the people who already support him it will be the hopey changey stuff. If he tries to broaden his base then he will give a different speech.

    I have to tell you though, whatever he says may be overshadowed by the props. The GOP is already having a jolly old time talking about the "Ocropolis" etc. And fireworks? Really, this could actually give him a negative bounce simply because the whole stagecraft thing brings up what people don't like about Obama.

    Obama WILL focus on "historic" tonight (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:42:47 AM EST
    Perhaps the Greek temple is the Lincoln Memorial and tonight will focus on fusing Obama with Lincoln, Kennedys, MLK, etc.

    >>>>"historic candidacy" stuff is a real turnoff to me. It promotes the idea that whe should simply vote for him because of his race.

    True. But the focus on "historic nomination" allows Obama, once again, to avoid issues and solutions. Read: how can Dems not vote for an historic candidate?

    Forget the Empty Suit - focus on "historic"!


    He'll be history (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:13:41 AM EST
    after November 4th, does that count?

    Seriously, I marevl again that someone thought an insta-temple on a football field made any kind of sense.  I also marvel that the Party had a chance to make history and, you know, WIN at the same time, and rejected it.


    I don't think the temple is the problem. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:18:09 AM EST
    The problem was that it was an outdoor venue and instead of the back drop being unveiled at the event, it was seen ahead of time.  This led to the speculation and the jokes.  If it had been set up indoors and under wraps, they wouldn't have had this problem.  The media would have spent 30 seconds on it at most.

    both are a problem..... (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:20:19 AM EST
    Obama desperately needs to redefine himself as a serious person -- and Invesco field plays against that.

    But the set itself emphasises that Obama is all about "presentation" and "image" -- practically eliminating the possibility that people will see Obama's speech as anything other than a performance.  

    What this convention has lacked is focus -- and that is very bad news for Obama, who desperately needs to define himself outside the GOP framing of him.  There is no "signature issue" for Obama that has any substance, and which could provide the kind of anchor that people need to understand what he would do as President.  

    And the complete mishandling of the fact that this was a closely contested election made it even harder to establish some sense of who Obama is.  Team Obama acted like it had a "Clinton problem" and in doing so created that problem, rather than doing what would ordinarily be done under these circumstances.


    Not so much of a problem (none / 0) (#59)
    by suisser on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:28:42 AM EST
    now because they are deconstructing it according to the  NYT today.  Why are they so tone deaf in the first place?

    Do you have a link to the NYT (none / 0) (#66)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:32:08 AM EST

    Here's the link (none / 0) (#76)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:39:58 AM EST
    to the article, but they aren't dismantling the set. They using different camera angles to make the setting more intimate.

    I stand corrected, (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by suisser on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:45:03 AM EST
    note to self - do not read paper prior to coffee

    yeah.... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    ....just Obama and 75,000 of his closest friends having a little chat.

    Obama seems intent on turning a Seinfeld show campaign (a political campaign about nothing) into an overproduced, humorless Gravel campaign (a political 'campaign' about political campaigns).


    Only Bill Clinton is capable of being (none / 0) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    surrounded by 80,000 and make EVERY one of them feel as if he is speaking just to them.

    As for using different camera angles, sorry but it won't help in the stadium itself; and FTR, people aren't stupid.


    I think they will listen to him (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    and be transfixed with the "Yes we Can" part of his speech which I think will be heard a zillion times.

    I know that this revival type celebration in not a good. It just is not a good move.  It would not have been for Hillary or any Democratic candidate. Yeah, I know that Kennedy did it but I thin that was corny too.

    I like the excitement of the good old traditional elections.


    Should people have supported Dr. King (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:45:52 AM EST
    Because of his race?  Or because he was saying the right thing?  It is a historic evening because it is the first time in our history an african american man will be nominated.  Of course i do find it ironic that an african american male will be nominated before a female but i digress.  In 10 years, 20 years, 30 years and beyond this night will be remembered as historic.  

    Stop your belly aching, vote McCain, Nader or stay home. Watch something else, take your dog for a walk or read a good book.  Or perhaps, watch Dr. King's speech and reflect how far we have come as a country in 40 years.  When you find someone that is telling you to vote for O because he is black, cut and paste it here, I would love to see it.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    Um - YES?

    At a time when blacks had little to no rights, people supported him because he was black. He was also MURDERED because he was black.

    For you to find irony in Obama's speech tonight, rather than a grateful understanding of the progress our country is made is just flat out ignorant.

    If it was Hillary, we'd all be calling it historic as well, and talk about the women's movement that allowed her to get to this place.


    MLKJr was murdered (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:01:32 AM EST
    because he was a threat to those in power.

    Power is what it is always about.  


    RFK and JFK (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    what color were they when they were murdered? Dr. King was murdered because he was black and because of his message and because there are whack jobs on this planet.  Perhaps you are unaware but almost 16000 people are murdered in this country every year.   Support what is right and ignore the packaging, that is what my pop taught me.  Perhaps because I grew up as a minority in my neighborhood and schools and because my parents were adamant about what was inside all of us I have a different take.  

    this statement (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    "At a time when blacks had little to no rights, people supported him because he was black"
    needs a re-write.  Being black wasn't the only reason that people of all colors supported and admired Dr. King.  That's just wrong.  People supported him because he stood for, and ultimately enacted, civil rights change and laws.  He had a perfect mixture of personal and professional qualities that drew people together, expressed their justified frustrations, and got results, eventually.  Sure, he had the added credibility of being a member of the group he was representing (what great leader wasn't?), but that's akin saying "people only supported Gandhi because he was Indian."

    Ummm (2.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:59:02 AM EST
    My father did not support Dr. King because he was black, he supported him because he was right.  Many people supported Dr. King because he was black and he was right and they were not wrong either.  I do find it ironic that a black man is accepting before a woman, you don't?  Perhaps you have difficulty comprehending as I think it is significantly historic that a black man will accept the nomination.  Perhaps you should re-read the post and try a bit of comprehension.

    What irony? (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:05:33 AM EST
    Black men got the right to vote before women too, so how is it ironic that a black man gets the nomination before a woman now? It is history repeating itself.
    The problem I have with the forced MLK theme with Obama is exactly because of what you are saying -- MLK deserved to be supported because he was right not because he was black. And, in fact, that was the entire point of his "I have a Dream Speech" (his black children being judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin). However, the focus on the "historic nature" of the Obama nomination puts the focus on the fact that he is "black," with little to no thought as to whether he is "right." It is the opposite of MLK's dream.

    it is historic (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:23:19 AM EST
    because he is black, period. And if he loses, that will be his "legacy".  If elected and successful, even more historic because it goes to character and leadership.  If elected and fail prone, his legacy will only be "first african american" elected.  Are you making the charge that O's platform is not "right" ?  Last I checked half the country is right and half the country is left, being "right" is subject to interpretation.  I think O is right on many issues, at least the ones Bill C mentioned last night.  

    Although blacks were afforded the right to vote before women, I still find it ironic that african americans represent 10% of our population and women 51%.  Statistically speaking it is darned near impossible yet here we are.  It would seem to me that a candidate would more likely come from a population of 51% before 11% but i am not a statistician.


    You are missing the point completely (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:49:14 AM EST
    because you are focused on his being "black" and you are defaulting my criticism as my being racist. I am not arguing about whether Obama's positions are "right" or "wrong" -- I am saying that by focusing on the historic nature of his being the first black man to be nominated we haven't asked ourselves if he is the right person/most qualified/best candidate for the job -- I'm not saying he is or isn't -- I am saying that question has not been asked -- and you have proven exactly why it hasn't been asked -- because doing so gets one accused of being racist. That is not progress.

    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:00:52 AM EST
    I am not trying to infer racism on your part and I did enjoy and agree with part of your point.  I was making the point that at least half of america will not agree with his politics, but that does not make him right or wrong, no?  Makes him right to me as I believe in his "politics" but half the country don't think he is "right" because of the same.  It is historic because the color of his skin win or lose.  The question is whether or not his policies and the content of his character will allow him to win and be a good to great president.  His winning the nomination is like Jackie Robinson playing in the majors, and Jackie's legacy lives on because he was great and because he broke the color barrier.  When it comes to character relative to politics everyone is typically "wrong" to almost half of the population.  I am admiring the progress that allows us to be where we are, and like Barack because he is smart, liberal and wants America to rebuild its middle class.  America after all is a meritocracy and he will be judged on his ability to govern (should he win) and not the color of his skin.  Jackie Robinson was hailed a hero for crossing the line, he is remembered as a Hall of Famer.....

    We seem a little at cross-purposes (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    I think if we could actually talk to each other instead of writing our responses, we might find we agree here for the most part. Your Jackie Robinson analogy hits on a good point that I've also thought about for Obama -- unfortunately, it is still the case today that being the first AA holds Obama to a higher standard, just as Jackie Robinson was held to a higher standard when he was the first AA to join the majors. It is a well-documented fact that the owner of the Dodgers selected Robinson to be the first not only because of truly exceptional talents (there were other black players arguably as "good as" or even better players then Robinson), but also because his personal character & integrity was above reproach. The same way that Robinson had to be the "best of the best" in all aspects (athletic, personal, etc) in order for his "historic" ascendancy to the majors to be a success, the first black nominee needs to be the same -- especially if elected. If Obama is elected and his presidency is seen as a Carteresque disaster, I am afraid that people will blame it on the fact he is black. If he doesn't win, I am afraid people will blame it on the fact he is black. Under either scenario, there will not be a black nominee for a long, long time (unlike the door Robinson's success opened for black players in the majors). I am not justifying that happening or that way of thinking, but I do believe it is reality.  If I had more confidence that Obama was, in fact, the strongest, absolutely best candidate the Dems could pick this year, regardless of his color -- if he was, in fact, the Jackie Robinson of politics, then I would not have these concerns.

    i agree (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    things get lost in translation when typing and reading.  Great analysis on JR, and the ultimate test of whether or not we have progressed is whether or not the color of his skin plays a role in the success or failure of his politics (providing he win after not picking the best VP candidate but i digress).  I think if he fails it will be attributed to ego and age but only time will see that through.  JR and O fall into the same bucket based on their skin color at the moment, he would need to do an awful lot of good to merit a comparison to JR's accomplishments on and off the field especially considering what JR had to go through personally.....

    nice post , very well said (none / 0) (#158)
    by jlstexas on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    Also, I've never denied (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    that it is "historic" -- I'm saying the emphasis on the "historic" is not what the focus should be about.

    i conveyed the first message quite poorly (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:11:02 AM EST
    and believe that you read it as such.

    Thank you Angie! (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MMW on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:23:36 AM EST
    That is precisely the point. This is entirely about being Black, not about being right. This is not progress.

    True racism is accepting so little from a Black man.


    Racism.... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    is expecting more, or less, from a black person than you would from a white person, and vice versa.

    I mean Obama may be black, but he's still a politician...we should hold him to the same standard as every other politician, and from where I'm sitting we don't hold our politicians to any kind of standard at all.


    that's wjhy i flipped to nader (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    over FISA....

    I'm with Nadar too (none / 0) (#179)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:51:34 AM EST
    See, we do agree! :-)

    Right in theory (none / 0) (#181)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    wrong in practice -- being the first anything (black, woman, hispanic) automatically makes the person judged by a higher standard. (see my & JV's posts on Jackie Robinson below). It isn't fair, but it is true.  
    Nevertheless, Obama lost me on FISA & not picking Hillary as VP -- so it's NotMcCain & NotObama for me this year (i.e, Nadar).

    No that's soft bigotry (none / 0) (#185)
    by Redshoes on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    racism is a belief that those of a particular race are inherently better or worse than another race.

    Sorry it's a pet peeve because today everything seems to be treated as "racist" when often it's more about bigotry or prejudice.

    I don't know many racists but I do know a fair number of bigots (some of the prettiest talking heads on tv qualify).


    Point taken.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    prejudice or bigotry is a better fit, I agree.

    Why do you find it ironic? (none / 0) (#206)
    by rottodamn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    Black men gained the right to vote before women. I also think the reason it happened again this time is misinformation. Even though white women are the largest benefactor of affirmative action, people have been trained to think of a black person when affirmative action is mentioned. Not to mention % wise, white women sleep mostly with white men therefore it is easy for them to be seen as an extension of the white male rather than one who also struggles within the white male patriarchal system.

    White women struggle too just differently than other minorities because of their organic connection to white males as either a father, brother, husband or boyfriend.

    This is an honest assessment coming from a black, female Hillary supporter who went to Wellesley.


    Oh come on (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:48:57 AM EST
    Even if I don't like Obama, I can understand what a significant event this is for African Americans and many others who have fought along with them for their civil rights.  The same would be true for women if it were Hillary accepting the nomination.  

    Actually (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:00:02 AM EST
    I didn't buy into the "historic nature" business either with Hillary. She simply was a better candidate in my eyes.

    I can understand AA's being excited about having a candidate. I just wish they had a better one.


    Imagine Candidate Pelosi. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:10:46 AM EST
    Sure, I was pulling for Hillary in part because she was not only a credit to Democrats, but a credit to her gender as well.

    But if Nancy Pelosi had been running, I wouldn't be excited about her historic run.  I'd probably be cringing, hoping for the best and fearing the worst.


    I'd (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:36:01 AM EST
    Be excited.  And I can't stand Pelosi.  Look, whether or not you like Obama, whether or not you want him to win, you have to realize that this is a momentous event in American history.  It's not like he's some AA Nero, either.  You can certainly make a case that Clinton was a better candidate, but her candidacy was also historic.  It would remain so even if she'd beaten my preferred candidate.  

    Too bad (4.57 / 7) (#37)
    by tek on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:10:24 AM EST
    he didn't wait 4 or 8 years when he actually had experience in federal government and had maybe been vice president for awhile.  Then we could have had 8 years with Hillary and 8 more with Obama and the Dems would have had the first Woman Prez and the first black.  But that would be too much of a sacrifice for the to suit the Dem insiders who just want to crap all over the Clintons no matter the cost.  Yah, Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, Kennedy, Durbin, et al really know how to strengthen the Democratic brand, no?  

    Plus, more time on the national stage (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:56:37 AM EST
    would have made him a much more familiar figure.  Many doubts about him now come from the fact that people have just not seen him on their TVs for the last 10 years, like they have McCain, Hatch, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, etc. That builds a level of familiarity. Even if you don't agree with the person, you trust them to some extent because you have heard their voice over and over.  

    I'm not saying he won't get elected - but he definitely took a risk doing it this year, and the DNC took that risk with him.  They should have known better, IMO.


    Honestly I'm not buying this (none / 0) (#155)
    by zvs888 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    Yes I agree Hillary would have the easier time winning.

    But to think that a party could somehow hold on for 16 years?

    Even if Obama got 8 years of VP experience, there's no reason to believe we wouldn't be in for another Gore election.

    You need to remember that as soon as the economy gets fixed, people move on to the next issue.

    It would be the same after any 8 Democratic years that fixed the economy.  I do think Hillary would have an easier time getting 8 years, but to say that this isn't Obama's best opportunity to get elected is too speculative to be worth considering.


    No Experience Required (4.60 / 5) (#61)
    by Athena on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:29:28 AM EST
    Yes, indeed.  It's too bad that the first African-American candidate is not better prepared and more credible.  His underwhelming record and overwhelming rise only highlight the racialized politics that explain his rapid ascendancy.  It's all strangely backward and bizarre.

    Yeah but (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:55:11 AM EST
    We were going to hear about the "historic candidacy" regardless of whether Hillary or Obama won the nomination. The TV bobbleheads played it up more than the candidates themselves.

    And as far as the GOP's knock on the Ocropolis, I seem to recall the greek pillars for Bush's nomination in 2004. But why does hypocrisy surprise me out of the right?


    Michelle played it up all the time with AA's (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by BernieO on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:10:15 AM EST
    There were Youtube clips of her addressing mainly AA audiences talking about how important it was to have a president who "looked like them", then saying "It is our turn!" as an introduction for Barack. She might as well have said vote for Barack because he is black and America owes us.

    Forgot to add (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by BernieO on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:12:12 AM EST
    I was fully expecting the media to jump all over what Michelle was saying but instead they kept talking about how the Clintons were playing the race card. (This was during the SC primary.)I knew then that the fix was in.

    Ok but (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:17:27 AM EST
    That's like saying Hillary played the woman card when she addressed crowds of mostly women.

    I'm not saying the Obama's didn't cater to the A.A. vote, but they would also be stupid not to. They needed their votes to put them over in states they won.

    And Bill allowed the media to talk about the race card with that Jessie Jackson comment. With the "pundits" focusing on everything anyone said, that wasn't a smart move at that point.

    I don't believe in this "fix" personally.


    If Jesse Jackson won that primary (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:20:40 AM EST
    Bill was referring to, then he told the truth and what was wrong with what he had said. See the press, pressing him for a comment. I saw nothing wrong with what he said. I did see something wrong in how it was interpreted.

    What was the point of it? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:35:40 AM EST
    To point out the a black candidate ran a good race there?

    It wasn't very smart at that moment, he should've known what the media would twist and turn that into.

    Just like when Obama said "bitter". Stupid. Or when Hillary and her Bosnia gaffe. Stupid.

    The main stream media idiots are looking for ways to make all of these situations into a much more dramatic scenario than it actually is.

    I partly think they are to blame for the divide that exists in the party right now. Far as I can remember, Obama and Clinton both praised each other from the beginning.


    When a candidate or an (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    american is labeled as we have become, then it becomes, imo, difficult to say anything about anyone anywhere anytime anyhow. He was asked about Obama in the context of him being AA and Bill answered him. Whatever anyone thinks of Bill Clinton, he was a president of ALL the people and he was praised when he set up his office in Harlem. We have become too obsessed with labels, AA, Jewish-american, Mexican-american, etc. instead of just an american, or, just a candidate running for president.

    Are You Kidding Me? (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:08:18 AM EST
    Clinton was doing what Clinton loves to do, and what we who know him, love to hear him do.  We was talking about politics, and praising Obama's campaign.  Bill Clinton is the consumate politician and political observer.  His comments we in response to a direct question of comparing JJ's base to Obama's.  In the context of the entire interview ( which will forever be edited by the media so that it fits their own evil purpose ) his comments make perfect sense, and are a tribut to Obama's victory.  It never mattered what Clinton said, the media and Obama's campaign was going to cull every single statemt, every single word, pharse, sentance, facial expression,, etc. until they found something, anything to distort into a racist comment.  It was the most disgraceful, bare-knuckle, "say anything to win", politics of old, and from the "new", post-racial campaign.

    Perhaps you forget (2.00 / 0) (#139)
    by elonepb on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:50:50 AM EST
    The Obama camp did not make this controversy or bring it up.

    The media did. I have no objections to your opinions, they are yours to own, but just because the main stream media hyped this thing and twisted it into something it wasn't does NOT make the campaign Obama ran about race.

    I could say the same thing about Hillary's campaign if I was an Obamanut.

    It's really time to move past all this stuff. Hillary made the good point about why we voted for her, and it wasn't because I wanted a woman, or didn't want an African American. She represented the values that I believe in, and so does Obama.

    I may not like pushing his button in the booth as much as I would prefer hers, but it is a million times better than pushing that woman hater in the republican party.


    Time To Move Past, You Say? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:59:40 AM EST
    The daily assults of the Clintons continue to this day.  Funny you should lecture me about moving past, when I was responding to your attack on Clinton on the first place.  Every time I think I'm "over it", one of Obama's shrills drag me back into it.

    Obama's campaign played this up, and you know it.  His surrogates used it as a wedge between Clinton and AA voters.  The media was an accessory.


    Don't know about that (2.00 / 0) (#162)
    by zvs888 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    That really doesn't make any sense.

    If you looked at AA voters, most of them didn't think Obama had a shot early on so they were all behind Clinton.  As soon as it became evident that he did, which was when he won Iowa, his numbers started to shoot up (primarily among them) in the polling which was well before the SC primary and Bill's remarks.

    I'd say they would have gone at least 70 or 80 to 30 or 20 regardless of what Bill said, just as women were at the start.


    And that proves what? (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:20:31 AM EST
    I don't know what your point is.  The fact remains that Clinton was unfairly and dishonestly attacked as a racist.  That is a fact that has been well documented by bloggers and commenters on this very site over the primary season.  A better measure is to look at what happened to Bill Clinton's own ratings among the AA community, which took a dive as the attacks began.  Clinton has formally been very popular in that demographic, and painting his as a racist didn't help Hillary's campiagn.

    People like the commenter above continue to parrot the dishonest attacks, as though there was any merit at all to them.  That sort of thing won't help unite the party, nor will it play well in the GE.  


    Obama campaign race memo (none / 0) (#198)
    by 18anapple2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    It is not the same (none / 0) (#202)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    I think that the only way that Obama won is with almost 100% of the AA vote.  If that number were proportionate, he would not even be the candidate. I believe he knew exactly what he was doing by using race.He absolutely had to get the AA vote away from the Clintons.

    Hillary Clinton had maybe 40+ or - of the women's vote. Women are not good at voting for gender in block...but that is another subject to be analyzed somewhere else.

    This historic vote is coming with a lot of scorched earth left behind: the sexism, misogyny, division, the character assassinations of the Clintons, destruction of the MSM, and a radical change and realignment of the Democratic Party.

    That is part of this being "historic" also.


    Indoors it's always a balloon drop (none / 0) (#2)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:39:45 AM EST
    so outdoors they're going to do confetti and ... fireworks.

    Remember (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:43:11 AM EST
    How the balloon drop didn't work properly for Kerry? The balloons dribbled out a few at a time.  

    Should've been an omen....


    Democrats mess up Balloons a lot (none / 0) (#84)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM EST
    it's a running joke, the Democrats never get the balloons right, the Repubs always do. I think the Repubs try to sabatoge it.

    DNC had nixed balloons anyway - (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:44:31 AM EST
    not green.

    And fireworks are? (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:51:43 AM EST
    Confetti drop?

    LOL - I know (none / 0) (#35)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:10:09 AM EST
    Historic? I guess....never has there been (none / 0) (#171)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    such a blatant display of manipulation to help someone win a nomination, sorry to say.

    Intriguing is precisely right BTD (3.00 / 0) (#113)
    by DemForever on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    I am very much looking forward to the speech tonight.  I expect it to be great, and exceed expectations.

    Looking forward to another great speech (2.00 / 0) (#135)
    by irishdem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    Tonight's speech will cap a very successful convention. Everyone did their part now the party will be motivated to bring back a democrat to the white house. MLK is dancing!! Let freedom ring!

    What I'm actually (1.00 / 0) (#119)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:25:06 AM EST
    amazed and proud about is that Obama reached this place without being "the black candidate," even though many fiercely tried to paint him that way.

    But what do I know? I'm AA, and obviously can't think for myself, so I just listen what other people tell me is racist and I just vote like they tell me too. Hallelujah for the black guy with the fake southern preacher accent! Did I mention that I'm young, too? Ooh! That makes me extra naive!! I'm just a fan, I don't know anything about debt or hardship or hopelessness, nope I just blog on my computer and play my ipod (because those smart folks tell me I should), I don't really care about college or healthcare or anything like that, all I care about who can gather the biggest crowd. I'm female, though, so did I betray my gender by not supporting Hillary? I guess that's o.k. since I obviously betrayed the Clintons by not giving them my automatic and unquestioned support, just like the rest of my folks because, like I said, we're like the Borg. We don't think for ourselves, we're just one giant stupid monolithic being that only votes for black folks because they look like us, not because of anything else. Did I mention how we magically became the majority since that's the only way for Obama to win, right? We are either the majority, or the DNC conspired from the beginning to steal all of Hillary's votes and cheat her because they just hate those naughty wimmens.

    Amusing... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by ks on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    "...amazed and proud about is that Obama reached this place without being "the black candidate," even though many fiercely tried to paint him that way."

    Uh huh.  I guess it's easy not being the black candidate when Obama and his camp persistently dogwhistle people with bogus charges of racism everytime he catches some heat.  


    You miss what I'm trying to get at (1.00 / 0) (#153)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:05:25 AM EST
    He wasn't running on "We need a black guy in the White House" or "I'm going to be president of black people". He made sure of that by blowing the whistle on racism. He didn't want people to think that he was running to be president of black america, because he surely would have lost, just like Jesse Jackson. People tried to paint him as the "black candidate" and even the media stopped talking about the historic nature of him running as a black man for a while. But nobody forgot the historic nature of Hillary running as a woman. No one has forgotten it, even to this day. Nobody sees him running as trying to be the first black president except those who want to see it that way so that they have a reason to disparage blacks for voting for him, and this who are actually just racist idiots who send death threats and bomb threats. Weren't there two very recent incidents of people trying to shoot him for being black? Oh, yeah, he sure does want people to see him as trying to bring about black supremacy. Uh huh.

    I'm glad that you find me amusing. My job is to entertain :-)


    More amusement (none / 0) (#177)
    by ks on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    "He wasn't running on "We need a black guy in the White House" or "I'm going to be president of black people". He made sure of that by blowing the whistle on racism."

    Right.  So that's how you're spinning it. The bogus dogwhistles are/were "blowing the whistle on racism", huh?  Uh huh.

    "He didn't want people to think that he was running to be president of black america, because he surely would have lost, just like Jesse Jackson."

    Wrong.  JJ Jr didn't run to be the HNIC.  He just didn't try and pretend to be "post racial".  Actually, his very inclusive "Rainbow Coalition" theme was blantantly ripped off by Team Obama.


    The gift that keeps on givin'! (none / 0) (#178)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    I'm not talking about bogus dog whistles, I'm talking about actual whistles. What you see as bogus whistles demonstrating reverse-racism I see as bogus attempts to label him as a racist. That would be like trying to label Hillary a sexist because she purportedly blamed everything on sexism. Right. Uh huh.

    And actually, that's not wrong. Jesse Jackson lost because people don't want a president of black america. People saw Jesse Jackson as trying to be president of black america, regardless of his true intentions, just like some people see Obama as someone who has never worked at anything a day in his life, regardless of the truth. Since when has America ever believed the truth? Even Al Sharpton is now an irrelevant disgrace because he is seen as a reverse-racist who only tries to cater to blacks. Who in this country, besides some blacks, want a president of black america? You can't sit here and tell me that no one would be uncomfortable if he were trying to run as the president of black america. You yourself are obviously uncomfortable with the idea, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me.

    While you can get away with, "It's time for a woman in the White House," you can't get away with, "It's time for a black guy in the White House." This is very true in this country. I know it, you know it, and the whole country knows it. If Barack Obama had even come close to saying, "We need a black guy in the White House," the vast majority of people would've called him a racist and just would have voted for someone else (the rest would just call him stupid and another disappointment). No one even dares to call Hillary a sexist for saying, "We need a woman in the White House." I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying.

    Should I be a comedian? I'm just so darn amusing!


    Still amusing but now you're just rambling on.... (none / 0) (#189)
    by ks on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    "I'm not talking about bogus dog whistles, I'm talking about actual whistles. What you see as bogus whistles demonstrating reverse-racism I see as bogus attempts to label him as a racist."

    What?  That doesn't make any sense. Are you really trying to say that pointing out the Obama's camp bogus dogwhistles in which they blatantly or slyly make dubious charges of racism against others, is an attempt to label Obama a racist?  And, it has nothing to do with reverse racism. Your stances are silly.

    "And actually, that's not wrong. Jesse Jackson lost because people don't want a president of black america. People saw Jesse Jackson as trying to be president of black america, regardless of his true intentions,"

    Yes, it is wrong. JJ Sr. was running for POTUS not HNIC. If he won, he would not have been just "president of black america".  What you inartfully are trying to reference is the infamous "Black vs. American" question JJ Sr. was asked in an interview while he was running his first campaign. You don't really know what you are talking about so you're trying to create a narrative that doesn't make sense.  Are you even remotely familar the facts of JJ Sr's two POTUS runs?  

    His true intention was the populist "Rainbow Coalition" theme which was the template for Obama's lame copy - the "Unity Pony" stuff. If you really want to educate yourself, go look up the Nation's whole hearted endoresment of JJ Sr. and compare that to it's tepid endorsement of Obama.  The difference is telling.


    Comment number 6 (none / 0) (#194)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    I'm trying to say that there are many people here who see racism where it didn't exist and/or trying to say that Obama constantly called people racists when he didn't. His supporters, perhaps. He himself, no. I'm trying to say about that is that people here often try to say that Obama always deflects questions about him by calling people racists when that is just silly. Above, you tried to say that I was spinning the illegitimate calling people racists by some of his supporters when that is not at all what I was saying. This particular point is still off topic to my original point.

    I'm not referring to that question. I'm not really concerned with the Rainbow Coalition:Jesse Jackson::Unity Pony:Barack Obama. My original point is being muddled because of all these side points that I can no longer discuss because of my chains.

    My point is that Barack Obama could not be where he is if he had run as HNIC as many people here like to suggest. Many people here point to a few of his rabid supporters who see what they want to see (every candidate has a few rabid supporters who see what they want to see) as proof that Obama was running as HNIC. I'm pointing to the fact that other people besides blacks voted for him, and in large numbers, getting almost half of the votes as proof that he wasn't running as HNIC.  

    My point remains that he did not get where he is by running as HNIC, though many here believe that. I point to the fact that he got almost half the votes as proof. Blacks aren't the majority population here in the states, so logically, other people must have voted for him.

    Da dum, tish!


    No, not really (none / 0) (#150)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:00:12 AM EST
    Everyone knows (2.00 / 0) (#167)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    that if he had run as the black candidate, he would have lost, just like Jesse Jackson. If I'm not mistaken, blacks aren't the majority. He could get as much as the black vote as he wants but if other minorities and whites saw him trying to bring about black supremacy, they wouldn't vote for him. Plain and simple. So tell me, how did he get so many votes if he was trying to be president of black America? It's not like he only got a pittance (the black vote, which is somewhere around 14%, I think?)and Hillary got 86% of the population to vote for her.

    Your tag line is insulting (none / 0) (#182)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    Please remove it.

    So are a lot of (none / 0) (#183)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:06:49 AM EST
    things here. But, there ya go.

    Just heard on Morning Joe (none / 0) (#34)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:09:35 AM EST
    that we shouldn't expect the usual rhetorical speech he has done previously.  This is supposed to be a different sort of speech but didn't get anything more on it.

    You mean it'll be about (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:17:06 AM EST
    Change and Hope?  ;)

    Seriously, the next speech he gives that doesn't rely on vague fantasy will be the first.  Or, for that matter, the next time he gives a line that is memorable for a good reason.


    I hope he doesn't premiere (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    his Issues speech.  He's not very good or comfortable with the Issues and his best bet would be to break an Issues speech in while out stumping.

    Now, if he's planning on committing to Gore's plan, then I'm all ears.  


    It will be policy (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    Obama talked down his speech a couple of weeks ago.  He is going to talk policy.  People don't understand his policies.  McCain was attacked by Biden because he is 'wrong' so Biden's job is to go after McCain's character (which many said Biden wouldn't do because of their friendship... they know too much about each other and would get dirty) and policy.  Obama will focus on policy.

    He actually began his campaign with policy, but it wasn't getting him the crowds nor the media attention so he switched.  Hillary did 'Dem' Bill did 'Dem'.   The campaign has changed.  Their ads were pulled, the new ones will be refocused as he has been not performing well in the polls.  They had to retool.  Will it work or will it just make him more 'unknowable' to the public?

    Polls!  I want polls!


    Well, we got though to him (none / 0) (#204)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST

    I wonder how different it could possibly be? (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST
    Maybe a Greek chorus?  Thus the temple.

    Ah, the game of lower (none / 0) (#187)
    by Redshoes on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:17:32 AM EST

    How about this for being "intriguing"? (none / 0) (#64)
    by SunnyLC on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:31:43 AM EST
    The GOP has a new weapon ...it is really quite smart....ever hear of the "GOP Toobar"???  
    For some reason, I got a couple of emails earlier this week about a new GOP tool. It's the GOP Toolbar and it is scary....

    I write about it here....it makes O's 3am text message seem old-fashioned....

    "The GOP Toolbar...the Latest Thing in Their Arsenal... "

    While Obama was messing with a text message which didn't quite work out as planned, the GOP has come up with something else...among other things, "fundraising made easy."

    WITH the graphic of what it does!!!


    "If befriend donkey, expect to be kicked"--Charlie Chan

    Your link did not work. (none / 0) (#69)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:34:49 AM EST
    It's a shame that this will be (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:48:24 AM EST
    such a tricky territory for Obama to navigate.  But hopefully it will only get easier for subsequent candidates.  Will be an interesting night.  I wonder what Al Gore will have to say as an introduction.

    It's... (none / 0) (#92)
    by alvintostig on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    ... an historic night. Not "A"

    aspirate "H" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    or "an 'istoric night" with an inaspirate "H".

    This is encouraging: (none / 0) (#120)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    "I'm not aiming for a lot of high rhetoric," [Obama] said Wednesday. "I am much more concerned with communicating how I intend to help middle-class families live their lives."

    If Obama's smart he will reach out to those who so far have not been impressed with what he's said, or how he's said it.

    Being a great speaker is a double-edged sword.  This talent can convince many of almost anything.  But others, who know their history, are skeptical of a great speaker for this very reason.

    Tonight Obama needs to walk the line between those two realities.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:31:06 AM EST
    he has the right goal. He has a lot to accomplish tonight: 1. convince 1/4 or more of democrats to vote for him. 2. Staunch the bleeding with independents 3. define himself and tell the country what he stands for and what he will do. Perhaps he should also use the occasion to get out in front of his baggage.

    Obama does not refer to the stadium as Invesco (none / 0) (#123)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    Someone said he calls it by the old name Mile High Stadium so as to take away that he's supporting a corporation (not middle class) entity which would not look good.  

    Anybody truth to this?

    Probably Not (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by trublueCO on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    Our old stadium was named Mile High. When the new field was built, there was a contentious debate about naming it anything other than Mile High.

    To placate all the Broncos fans that didn't want to lose part of their history, they officially named it Invesco Field at Mile High. Most locals still just call it Mile High stadium...it isn't because some company bought the naming rights, it is merely a matter of sports history and local tradition.


    Ok but where did name Invesco come from? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:11:15 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#164)
    by trublueCO on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    The name Invesco is definitely there because of a corporate naming deal.

    I just think its more likely Obama is calling it Mile High because that's what the locals call it than him wanting to avoid the looking like he is supporting a corporate entity.


    BILL CLINTON SPEECH (none / 0) (#152)
    by Oceandweller on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    could anyone give me the thread to watch if belatedly bill clinton speech.
    on this side of the thames , we did not get it and I really would like to see that historic moment
    possibly CNN did show it but being 5hrs ahead of you all, I was sound asleep when the fun started.

    Historic indeed.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:22:52 AM EST
    Congratulations Democrats.
    Congratulations America.

    Risks of Invesco event worry top Dems (none / 0) (#176)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    According to Yahoo

    Read   LINK

    What's interesting to me is the media's glowing (none / 0) (#180)
    by Redshoes on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    response to Obama's oratory -- I thought his speech at the 2004 Convention was perfect and moving but I thought his speech earlier this year on race was ordinary and yet to listen to the press he was Moses -- the ultimate authority.  

    Having listened to his stump speech and his responses in the debate he is not a natural.

    But that just tells me that he's worked really, really hard to hone his craft.  

    I'm genuinely hopeful that his address to the democratic nation will soar and inspire -- regardless of what else people say and whatever reservations they may have regarding his policy stances Obama has inspired a whole generation (much younger than this skeptical old coot).

    I think the issue of race (the historic part of this campaign) distorts the media's analysis of Obama and his skills.  

    In a reality based world, he can not be the post (fill in the blank ___) candidate when everything gets fractured through the prism of race.  From where I sit his campaign has been like a kaleidoscope fabulous for minorities but reflective of the real picture.  

    This is (none / 0) (#200)
    by JThomas on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    a huge historic day...the day when we start the journey toward wrestling away control of our govt and lives from the right wing corporatocracy. Govt for the people,of the people,by the people is the brass ring we are reaching for. Make it happen america.