Wednesday Night at the DNC

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is speaking now. I didn't find it special.

A very happy, energizer-bunny of a nun is up next. She seemed very nice but a little too cheerful.

The big flap on Jerusalem, brings to mind this fun video from "Working Girl."

I'll be back for Clinton and check the comments to see if I've missed anything. [Post speech thoughts below...]

Ok, I wasn't as crazy about Bill Clinton's speech as the rest of you. I thought it was too detailed and number driven. It was a recitation of statistics. And there were too many lecture-like "listen now" and "this is important" refrains. Sure, it was forceful but it was not inspirational. He sounded like a politician and a party-line guy. (Which of course he is.) It wasn't very personal.

It's Republicans who are throwing out the idea that Obama will have a tough time tomorrow night following Clinton. Obama will have no trouble. Obama will do tomorrow what he did at the DNC in Boston in 2004 and Denver in 2008 -- his speech will be inspirational and emotional. When he came out to greet Clinton after Clinton's speech, it was a demonstrative reminder that Clinton's era has passed-- Obama is the present. All Obama needs to be is authentic, not get bogged down too many policy details, and convey the impression that the country is safe in his hands.

I think Rahm Emanuel, Lilly Ledbetter, Julian Castro -- even Kathleen Sebelius did a better job of promoting Obama and his record than Clinton did. They spoke with emotion, confidence but not bravado, and with feeling. Clinton spoke with force, but from the head. And there was too much bluster.

So Obama will do more than hold his own tomorrow in comparison. He will inspire. That's always been his principal strength. Tonight, I think the Georgia delegation, in casting its votes for Obama, captured how most people view him: "He has earned people's trust and he has served with dignity." He just needs for that image to come across tomorrow. He doesn't need more because the same can't be said of his opponent. I think he'll deliver.

Mitt Romney hasn't earned any trust yet. He's a question mark to too many people. People are not going to buy a pig in a poke this year, times are too dicey. They want safe and steady. Sure, they wish they were better off, but no way will they risk things getting worse. It's not a good time to shake the boat.

Of course, Medicare alone may defeat Romney/Ryan. Anyone over 40 isn't going to chance risking Medicare. Their parents need it now, and they want it there for them. At 40, they already have 20 years of taxes invested in it. As for those 55 and over, not a chance -- people don't open Pandora's Box when their future is on the line.

When Obama says he won't mess with Medicare, people believe him. When Romney says he won't, no one knows. That's the trust and character issue, and it will put Obama over the top in November. He didn't have that 4 years ago, he was a Newbie, but he has banked enough now. He got health care through, put some diversity in the Supreme Court by nominating two women, helped the auto industry and their jobs survive, pushed the envelope with his executive order granting relief for children of immigrants, the troops left Iraq and he set a date for their withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Some promises he didn't keep, like closing Gitmo and trying the 911 defendants in federal court, were blocked by Congress. Sure, he's still wrong on the war on drugs and in his support for more intrusions into our privacy. But this election isn't about what people like me think. Most voters don't care about those issues, and those of us who do know Romney would be worse.

For all the money Romney had in the bank, he has a trust deficit. He also doesn't connect on a personal level. While his wife is more personable than he is, no one identifies with Donna Reed or June Cleaver any more-- especially not women. There are too many Lily Lidbetters out there.

I expect Obama's speech tomorrow night will showcase the personal, authentic side of Obama, interspersed with inspirational references and moments of passion and quips of humor. That's all he needs. Bill Clinton won't be a factor. Put another way, in November, the Obama-Romney contest will come down to people asking themselves the equivalent of "Who'd you rather?" The answer is going to be Obama, having nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

< Text Messages Get 4th Amendment in Rhode Island | The Speech Obama Should Emulate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sister Simone Campbell, of "Sisters on (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:50:38 PM EST
    the Bus," is kicking butt - what a dynamic speaker, and what a powerful message.

    Yes, she was inspiring to mee (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    Lovee the contrasts with her and Paul Ryan's view of their Catholic faith.

    Nuns live in the real world, and ... (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:36:50 PM EST
    ... their mission in life is to help people.

    Paul Ryan and his GOP friends live in a self-absorbing bubble, and their mission in life is to help themselves.


    Nun on the Bus (none / 0) (#25)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    Yep, Paul Ryan forgot the commandment about loving your neighbor as yourself.  Sister Simone feels the love for others and she acts on it.  

    Paul Ryan also conveniently forgot ... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:27:50 PM EST
    ... Jesus Christ's lessons about honesty, as he related in his parable about the shrewd manager: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." (Luke 16:10)

    Did you hear his latest lie? (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:31:44 PM EST
    He apparently lied his head off about having climbed something like 40-- not a typo, 40-- of the over 14,000-foot mountains.  The mind reels.

    Jim Fallows's blog has the scoop at the Atlantic.


    Ryan (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    is reaching the point where calling him a pathological liar is a compliment.

    I have a brother in law like this. I mean he cannot tell you the truth to the simplest question like what did you eat for breakfast? He will lie to you about that.

    This all comes back to what was Romney thinking? Maybe the GOP wants to lose this election? I have to wonder what his constituents back home think about all this.


    Ryan will turn out to be a (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:36:10 AM EST
    disasterous choice for Romney. Seniors will not trust that ticket or vote for it.

    Losing the runner vote (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by observed on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:47:52 AM EST
    hurts, too.

    Oh, that is not going to go over well in CO (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:41:01 PM EST
    The fourteener climbers do keep track of that stuff. No fair cheating.

    What a true lie... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by fishcamp on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:48:22 AM EST
    I have climbed three of the 14 thousand footers in Colorado and I know several people who have climbed all of them and they have dedicated their lives to doing it.  Paul Ryan would have to live in Colorado to climb 40 of them.  Maybe he forgot to lie about that too.

    Yes - when I first heard him say that (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:52:04 AM EST
    a few months ago, I was skeptical because the serious climbers I know in CO are out there every weekend of the good weather, and sometimes the winter, bagging fourteeners, and my most accomplished personal friend has about 40 of them.  But knowing it was such a big deal, I couldn't believe he would actually lie about it, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

    'Learned about this latest Ryan claim (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:44:51 AM EST
    from my husband yesterday...who told me that a number of mountaineers were looking into this one.  

    'Husband has climbed a number of Fourteeners ...when we were young & lithe in the now last century...and, this latest quickly caught his attention.


    Did he say (none / 0) (#111)
    by sj on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:58:59 AM EST
    that he climbed to the top of the fourteeners?  Maybe he meant he climbed like a tree on them or something... :)

    he said he made 40 climbs in the 14ers (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by DFLer on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:05:03 AM EST
    whatever that means.

    I do believe he did those climbs in under 3 hours, though.


    For those who missed Julian Castro and his (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:33:16 PM EST
    Adorable daughter last night, here she is : Carina Victoria. She got a few laughs of her own.

    Sandra Fluke calling out Romney for not speaking (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:04:32 PM EST
    out while the extremist voices of his party attack private citizens.

    Three cheers for Sandra Fluke! (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:04:53 PM EST

    Sandra (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    got bumped to prime time and it looks like the last minute change was a great call. She  was originally scheduled before Chris Van Hollen.

    Liz! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:18:22 PM EST
    'the system is rigged against them' . Great start!

    she is kicking a$$ (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:22:57 PM EST
    Elizabeth's not a fiery orator, but she (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    sure is good at what she does. Simple, heartfelt and easy to understand.

    I'd vote for her.


    She's doing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:27:59 PM EST
    a great job advocating for issues but maybe it's just me but her advocacy for Obama is not that good or maybe it's because I know more than most people.

    Yeah, kind of can't buy Tim Geithner's boss as the (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:31:35 PM EST
     hero against the banks.

    But I get that the DNC has the speakers actually mention the candidates, not like the RNC speakers.


    The GOP will have fun with her attributing (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    the turnaround in 1930s to Teddy Roosevelt.  

    She didn't attribute the recovery from (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:07:08 PM EST
    the Great Depression to Teddy Roosevelt. She was talking about the trust-busting legislation that T. Roosevelt championed in the early 1900s. She talked about the creation of the FDA and the FTC. Teddy Roosevelt did that.

    She was correct in everything she attributed to Teddy Roosevelt.


    Well, she didn't call it out as a bi-partisan (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:27:46 PM EST

    My Memory (none / 0) (#127)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    is that she referred to the progressives who spearheaded various reforms...

    "About a century ago, when corrosive greed threatened our economy and our way of life, the American people came together under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt and other progressives, to bring our nation back from the brink."


    EW (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:18:10 PM EST
    was talking about "The Square Deal", not the "New Deal".

    I think she is very unique (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    in her POV and intelligence and she is going over the heads of some people, I think.  They seem to be embracing the idea that there are different kinds of Democrats at this Convention, in terms of belief and tone (or so sayeth the NY Times).  But she is really hitting home at times and has done well.

    yeah...a bit of a nerd (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:34:20 PM EST
    nonetheless, I might have to kick her campaign another ten bucks tonight

    Big Dog looking good! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:36:36 PM EST

    Finally, someone at this convention (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:40:20 PM EST
    mentions the poor. It's about time.

    He is sure running long (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:22:08 PM EST
    though.  Way long.

    As always.......keeping David Brooks up past his (none / 0) (#65)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:32:27 PM EST
    bedtime, no doubt

    oh, he is so enjoying (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    himself!  But he teaches a good seminar, I will say that.

    Looked like he even got (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:54:03 PM EST
    Michelle choked up!  Wow.

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:15:16 PM EST
    has the GOP locals spitting nails. They all have their underwear in a wad listening to him speak.

    It's a long speech (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:17:07 PM EST
    but he is gunning for independent voters, it seems to me.  Hopefully waking people from the coma induced by our "media."

    He really could go on all night (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    But maybe it is time to wrap it up. Highly enjoyable though.

    I believe the term of art is (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:22:55 PM EST

    And nobody does it like Bill.


    Heck of a speech (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:26:24 PM EST
    vintage Clinton!

    Clinton is doing (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    what Obama cannot.  He is dead on calling them on their lies.  IMO!  

    This cat (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:28:10 PM EST
    Loves the big dog.  He dismantled the Republican arguments in just 45 short minutes.  Ok, maybe not short.

    Loved the shout out to arithmetic.

    I am ecstatic (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:32:34 PM EST
    I had pretty high expectations but this blew them all to smithereens.  He didn't just endorse Democrats, he endorsed Obama as Obama and gave him credit on virtually every issue and even his approach (which regardless of my differences, that's what makes a nomination speech).  It's like he's been watching Fox News and decided, to hell with this.  You don't like facts?  Now here's some facts.  GOOD LORD.

    The best thing about a good convention (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:52:58 PM EST
    Is that they get plenty of points to riff on until the election. I think the Dems are coming out with a whole lot more than the GOP did.

    Just goes to show you (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:58:21 PM EST
    what happens when you mix policy with passion...

    They eat it up!

    I wasn't sure (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:04:49 PM EST
    how they could match last night's lineup of Deval Patrick, Julian Castro, and Michelle...but once they hit 10:00ET and lined up Sandra Fluke, Elizabeth Warren, and the Big Dog it was back to back winning nights.

    And both nights better than anything in Tampa.

    That was a decent speech no? (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:45:42 PM EST

    Understatement (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:25:25 AM EST
    is not your usual mode.

    Yes, wonderful in a sui generis sense (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:52:19 AM EST
    It does the heart  & spirit good to hear former  President Clinton in top form again.

    Expectation:  President Obama will, indeed, deliver an aspirational speech. A speech of. Passion & purpose.  And, the fact that the two men may have different styles does not mean one is better or more impressive. Their speeches, for example, are meant to accomplish different things.  Clinton is at his best when weaving a narrative of explanation & persuasion...in the past & tonight, I stood, cheered, laughed, nodded, applauded, & whooped it up.  Obama elevates with words, paints a vision, can transfix & soar...'looking forward to the acceptance speech.


    You're right, (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:02:00 AM EST
    Clinton laid out the stakes in this contest. Now, Obama has to inspire them to get to the polls.

    good luck with that (none / 0) (#114)
    by kmblue on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:25:52 AM EST
    Obama can't touch Clinton.  Obama lectures, gets lost in a forest of words, and has a need to punish
    (you don't appreciate me enough!)

    I bet Obama will make a speech that will throw a water bucket on Clinton's magnificent performance.
    Really too bad.


    What to watch for (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:35:08 AM EST
    The August jobs numbers come out tomorrow at 8:30 am.  Obama will know the numbers before he goes out to speak tonight.  Watch for the adjectives he uses to describe the jobs situation - is he cautious and downplaying it? Numbers might be pretty bad.  Is he upbeat, optimistic, maybe even cocky?  Then there's a good chance they look pretty good.

    He's got 3 more reports that come out before election day.  Each one gets more important and magnified for his chances to win.


    The estimate (none / 0) (#116)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:59:59 AM EST
    is for a +125,000 compared to Bush in August 2008 who had a -84,000.

    The ADP report today which is hit and miss with it's overall accuracy pegged the August private jobs number at +201,000 and the stock market is responding by being up over 200 points already today.


    Except Bush wasn't running in 2008 (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    When Bush ran in 2004 (the last time the incumbent gave his convention acceptance speech the night before the numbers came out), his speech was very upbeat and optimistic (even after a disastrous July report).  The numbers came out the next morning and it was +144,000.

    I, too, have been reading predictions at about 120,000.  With that number the unemployment rate will remain about the same, which is not that great.

    What's more important is that the Fed meets next week and could decide on more stimulus action or more of a wait and see approach.


    That (none / 0) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    was to give you an idea of the turnaround. But you knew that and don't want to acknowledge it.

    It's a good thing Bush wasn't running again. The jobs number was down 2.9 million in 2008. Funny thing, I've always thought it took twice as much time to fix the damage as it takes to cause it. Using that math, eight years of Bush should take 16 years to fix. At the current pace Obama may be able to repair a majority of the Bush damage in just eight.


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:45:55 AM EST
    what you wanted me to "Acknowledge".  The point was - the jobs number is coming out the day after Obama gives his acceptance speech, so we should watch his choice of words and his composure while talking about jobs.  This hasn't been done since 2004.  The fact that jobs numbers were bad in August 2008 means absolutely nothing since neither candidate was the incumbent and asking for another term, and presumably, would not have had advance notice of the numbers (like the president does).

    I know you like to find boogey-men in my comments, but you are comparing apples to oranges here.


    On the contary (3.50 / 2) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:51:29 AM EST
    I look for progress. You are always in search of the boogeyman. You even resort to looking under rocks for adjectives.

    Actually (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    I search for facts, not party-line talking points.

    Okay, this is just getting a little silly. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    Whether the numbers are good, bad or somewhere in-between, Obama's going to come out and say what he has to say to convince people that we are moving in the right direction, and that not giving him another four years - handing the reins over to Romney and Ryan  - risks reversing that course.  Which is pretty much what every other speaker has said on the subject of jobs.  Whatever he knows ahead of the speech, he's going to tell the people that we can do better, we should do better, but we can't do that with Republicans in office.

    Last night was about loading the bases; Obama's coming up to bat tonight to hit the grand slam: that's they way it works, and I don't see Obama changing his message in any way just because he knows the jobs numbers ahead of time.

    Hey, I could be wrong - wouldn't be the first time - but this is, for the most part, theater.  It's preaching to the choir, and I've no doubt that, at least in the hall tonight, and with respect to a large number of people watching at home, Obama will have Democrats off-the-charts energized and excited and ready to go out and work the ground game.

    I don't know, there's something about your comment that's reminding me of David Brooks - who, after I heard just a couple minutes of last night, made me grab the remote away from my husband to switch to C-Span: Brooks thinks he's a fount of brilliant political insight, but really, he's just noise.


    Wow (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    People are so sensitive. Wanna read criticim and add insults when they are so unnecessary.

    It's just a theory and something fun to watch - not the secret to the Holy Grail.

    I know, I know - how dare I actually interject a theory (not even an opinion), around here.

    A David Brooks comparison?  Shrill much?


    Yes, jbindc (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    Everyone is "so sensitive" but you:) :)

    Most definitely. (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:05:34 AM EST
    NYT blog: (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:09:39 AM EST
    He's the only person who can turn the word "arithmetic" into an applause line.

    It wasn't a speech, (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:58:22 PM EST
    it was a tutorial for the Obama Team on how you take the fight to the bast*rds.

    He did a whole sectoin (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:31:55 AM EST
    on why its better to be cooperative with Republicans than engage in the "politics of conflict." He said it's how you get things done.

    That phrase, "a stopped clock is right twice a day" is in all my motions to suppress expert testimony and junk science. Rahm Emanuel laughed like it was the first time he ever heard it.


    Bill Clinton is a great teacher, who (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:28:39 AM EST
    has an ability to speak to people rather than at them; he takes the complex and breaks it down to where people can understand.

    But for me, he went off the track on the whole thing about cooperating with Republicans; it may have worked for him, starting 20 years ago when he was first elected, but he can't possibly think that a tactic that hasn't worked in any measurable way for Obama and Congressional Dems up to this point has any better chance of working in the next term.  For some time now, the only kind of cooperation Republicans go along with is the kind where Dems just give them whatever they want.  We've already seen too much of that, and it's not a recipe for advancing Democratic goals.

    The other area that bothered me was the part about the debt.  He was right that Republicans are hypocritical about it, that trickle-down is a failure, but where he is wrong, in my opinion, is in not making the case for why the debt really doesn't matter, and how strategic spending in the absence of demand is a valuable tool - and a responsible one - for pulling the economy out of a hole.  Problem is that (1) he believes the debt does matter and (2) even if he didn't, he can't exactly be up there on the podium preaching a philosophy that Obama doesn't subscribe to, can he?


    Anne, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    I pondered that "cooperation" thing also

    But, the thinking is that Clinton's speech was aimed primarily at the Independents. And, for them, "cooperation" is a big deal. Now, I don't believe Clinton is naïve enough to think that cooperating by the Republicans is even remotely on their radar. But, by emphasizing it, it might make the Republican's intransigence the toxic issue that tilts the Indy's thinking somewhat.


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:46:45 AM EST
    Saying "the debt doesn't matter" is accurate.  It may not matter as much as Republicans are emphasizing, but having a huge debt IS a problem. That is money that we are paying out to our creditors that could be used for other things - some of those other things that liberals love - social programs, education, health care, infrastructure etc. just to name a few.

    Economists can't and don't agree about the hyperinflationary effects of "printing more money" (Oh, if it were only that easy!  They would have done it already!)  But since economics is an art and not a science, this is not surprising.  But even Paul Krugman admits that the debt matters, especially in the context of our current political climate:

    Now, the fact that federal debt isn't at all like a mortgage on America's future doesn't mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don't have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion. But these costs are a lot less dramatic than the analogy with an overindebted family might suggest.

    And he was so persuasive he (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:46:39 AM EST
    almost had be believing it was possible. But I was glad he then reminded us that it does take both sides, and that many in the current GOP are not interested.

    'glad' is not the right word (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:47:38 AM EST
    More reassured that he pointed out reality.

    Yes but it's (none / 0) (#104)
    by fishcamp on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:56:55 AM EST
    getting really difficult to be cooperative with the R's because they are in rabid panic mode and won't listen to anything but their shallow thoughts from shallow minds.

    Umm . . J? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:26:15 AM EST
    I personally wouldn't dismiss BC'c speech too quickly. Do you not see several possible commercials starring BC? :)

    Too many women ... (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:44:41 AM EST
    ... for Erik Erikson.  He has now issued a semi-apology for his tweet about the first night of the convention:

    "First night of the V@gina Monologues going as expected".

    Now says:

    "My apologies to those offended by my tweet.  Wasn't my intention".

    And these idiots can't figure out why they have issues with women voters.

    Good advice (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:57:30 PM EST
    All Obama needs to be is authentic,

    To paraphrase George Burns, if he can fake that, he has it made.

    do you have a list of speakers? (none / 0) (#1)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:42:00 PM EST

    Still upcoming (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    Sandra Fluke, Elizabeth Warren, Bill Clinton

    ta (none / 0) (#5)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:16:10 PM EST
    warren and the big dog....oh yeah

    Now a Cuban-American journalist Christina (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    Did not catch her last name. I think she is from Telemundo.

    I'm told on current she is deeply respected (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:21:31 PM EST
    and this is really big - she is like the Oprah of Telemundo.

    She is good. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:28:03 PM EST
    Very very good.  "What is that!" she sounds like my grandmother.  I like that she is throwing in Spanish phrases (Mayor Castro did the same).  I think it is a great gesture to the diversity of this country and the Party, and the reality of people's lives.  I also imagine it may bait some nutty GOP rep >:P

    Christina Saralegui (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:25:31 PM EST
    Also to come (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:23:44 PM EST
    Chris Van Hollen, Jim Senegal.

    I think the Big Dog is smart enough not to let a Defal Patrick on before him.


    Everyone is good so far (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:13:00 PM EST
    Sister Campbell especially, and I thought the Del. Governor and Port City brewer did well.  I like that they are not being defensive of the past but are indeed looking forward.  At least in these presentations (I didn't see last night).  It seems to be working out well and of course having their Convention second is in their favor.

    Coming up now.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:45:11 PM EST
    People who worked for companies controlled by Bain. This should be good.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:48:02 PM EST
    it will be.

    Whoever put together this convention should be congratulated. So far so good. however I still think Charlotte was not a good location. The speakers however have been way above what the GOP offered. Newt and Callista having a conversation? That was just sad and even worse was Romney got upstaged by an empty chair.


    I am so impressed by these regular people (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:53:02 PM EST
    thatpeople that can get up on a stage like this and give speeches. Wow.

    The proof is in the pudding... (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:55:23 PM EST
    but his campaign is good.  They are unapologetic and so far subtly referring back to the GW years (I think the GOP earns sympathy sometimes - not from me - in complaining we are still talking about him after 4 years).  And Romney's past, damn, lots of skeletons there.

    Hmm...did Chris Van Hollen steal Clinton's debt clock/built that line?


    Al Gore and spritzer talking over van Hollen (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:58:43 PM EST
    talking about Bain.

    oh, they took it to Romney and Bain (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:10:24 PM EST

    Kind of telling the Matt Taibbi reporting (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:51:37 PM EST
    as eye witness accounts.

    David Brooks is a twit. (none / 0) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    i just had to say that. It's been building for a couple of hours now.

    I don't have cable. So, i am watching the convention on PBS. And that means I am subjected to the interminable and idiotic whining of David Brooks.

    He is so offended that the speakers keep talking about what Romney did at Bain instead of talking about the big issues for the future or, at least, what Brooks thinks are the big issues for the future.

    Sorry about that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    Yes, he is a twit. It must be said.

    CSPAN CSPAN CSPAN (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    No breaks from the action on the podium ever, including the musical acts.

    no David Brooks


    We've tried to tell them (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:24:05 PM EST
    Even the twit is forced to concede that the (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:35:33 PM EST
    GOP had nothing as good as Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama at their convention. And all the PBS people agreed that seeing Bill is always a treat. He is the master at this type of speechifying.

    Poor David Brooks was trying so hard to come up with something, anything that the GOP could use against Obama that would b anywhere as effective as Bill's speech was against Romney/Ryan.


    attention David Brooks (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:41:21 PM EST
    what Romney did at Bain is a big issue for the future insofar as what Romney did at Bain is the template for our collective future

    If you listen on public radio, it is pretty (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:05:38 PM EST
    straight coverage.  

    David Brooks could be called (none / 0) (#27)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:11:08 PM EST
    close to an abomination.  How full of himself can he be?  

    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    actually BIG issues for the future might be a good idea but the reason Brooks does not want anybody to talk about Bain is because it makes Romney look bad.  PBS used to not be that bad but the last time I watched a convention on PBS was back in the 90's and they had Mark Shields and some WSJ guy but while I didn't really like the WSJ guy that much he was not annoying like Brooks.

    Elizabeth Warren now speaking. n/t (none / 0) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:17:56 PM EST

    And now the Big Dawg takes the stage. (none / 0) (#40)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:34:24 PM EST
    Give 'em hell, Bill.

    Ohhhh man (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:37:41 PM EST
    he's killing it.

    Da**he's good (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    So funny.

    omg. Arithmetics! (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:18:04 PM EST
    And he got my waterworks going (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:27:32 PM EST
    Da** he's good.

    Crowd (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    goes nuts for Hillary.

    Finally George Will told a truth: (none / 0) (#62)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:28:13 PM EST
    How is Obama going to follow that?

    You know (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:32:40 PM EST
    I actually kind of wondered the same thing myself while I was watching it.

    Unsaid by Clinton... (none / 0) (#63)
    by magster on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:29:15 PM EST

    ha (none / 0) (#68)
    by magster on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:33:30 PM EST
    unsaid by Clinton is "I wish I was president again so I could run with what got started."

    For those of you familiar (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:55:16 PM EST
    with the game NBA Jam...that was like 1000 Bill Clinton Boom-Shaka-Lakas.  

    Roll call of the states (none / 0) (#75)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:03:33 PM EST
    one of my favorite parts...seriously.

    I like hearing every delegation's "pitch" for their home turf.

    I also like looking at the shots of my home state's delegation to see if I can see anyone I helped vote forward to the convention.

    Available only on CSPAN CSPAN CSPAN....btw

    Clinton (none / 0) (#77)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:15:10 PM EST
    "put the corn where the hogs can get to it."

    Love me some Bill.  

    I hope obama's speech is half as good.  But I fear my hope will be in vain.

    Gotta hand it to Bill... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:28:14 PM EST
    man is good at what he does. If I didn't know about so much dirty, he could have totally convinced me to vote for the pres.  Much better salesmen working for Brand D, all bias aside.

    And if I lived in Mass, Liz Warren is a Dem I could vote for, she did a nice job.  Obviously it's not the venue for the 100% straight strong dope, it's a sales pitch, I get it...hopefully she's on the Senate floor slinging straight dope for 6 years, holding Obama's feet to the fire.

    Elizabeth (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:33:24 PM EST
    is going to have a hard time beating Scott Brown, but the Obama campaign putting her into a prime time speaking slot tonight should certainly help the cause.

    The CST's... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:45:02 PM EST
    gotta outnumber the Massholes, no? ;)

    One thing we got going for us in this Brown run is an extreme Republican platform on full display, and a totally different Mitt Romney than the one who governed Mass.  His many changes of mind, totally sincere I'm sure;), might play in a GOP primary but not in Mass.  Punish th


    s/b Punish the ticket Mass! (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:45:41 PM EST
    Unfortunately, in this case (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:24:34 AM EST
    Mass. voters are used to that conflict and have already factored it in.  They like Brown.  (He's likable, actually.)  Too many of them viscerally resent Harvard and everything connected with it.  Sometimes Mass. voters can be incredibly provincial in their thinking.

    Mass. is a lot like N.Y. (none / 0) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:57:58 AM EST
    NYC, all Democrat; upstate, all Republican

    You've got Cambridge, and then the rest of the state. She's got the university complex wrapped up, but is having problems in the more conservative "outback."

    It's simply a function of her inexperience as a politician, not knowing how to tack to the right (or center) once outside of Boston.

    I think (hope?) there's still time, and if she takes the lessons of tonight's convention to heart she might still make a fight out of it.


    I demand a hand recount (none / 0) (#98)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 05:36:55 AM EST
    of the God and Jerusalem vote.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:15:34 AM EST
    You'll have to let the SC decide.

    Reachin' (none / 0) (#105)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:26:54 AM EST
    That's all you got?  :-)

    USA Today's factcheck of (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    Bill Clinton's speech:


    Fact Checking (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    Clinton, Pelosi and Hoyer

    from WaPo


    Perhaps the most revealing spectacle (none / 0) (#117)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:09:23 AM EST

    Perhaps the most revealing spectacle was the voice votes on the platform language changes.  If anything demonstrates official Dem tolerance for not counting every vote and vote fraud that was it.


    Outrageous, huh? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:36:29 AM EST
    Just curious - which is more outrageous?  A voice vote among to change a party platform, or paid Republican staffers and campaign workers shutting down an actual vote recount in a public election?

    Crocodile tears are so unconvincing ...


    "... among party delegates" ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:45:21 AM EST
    ... to change a party platform..."

    Actually, i think both were pretty (none / 0) (#128)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    rotten ways to handle things. In both cases, the will of the delegates was ignored. The convention rulers were going to get what they wanted and delegates be damned.

    The only difference was the Dems did it on national TV, and Villaraigosa had the decency to look uncomfortable about the whole sham of a vote.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    I think inserting the language was simple pandering/kowtowing and they never should have bothered.  It's just silly and it makes them look weak.  The Republicans don't have anything in their platform about apple pie ... or puppies.  Using their logic, I guess they hate apple pie and puppies.

    My real point, though, was AAA's hypocritical, crocodile tears and faux concern for "vote fraud" and "counting every vote".  Having party delegates make vote on changes to a party platform by voice vote - without even being certain they had a majority - is nothing compared to what Republicans did in 2000.


    You are right about that. (none / 0) (#130)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    Pretty much nothing compares to stealing a presidential election.

    The Republicans have shown time and again, the current spate of voter suppression laws being the recent evidence, that they have no respect for democracy, even a democracy as flawed as ours.


    brings to mind ?? what? Weakness? (none / 0) (#132)
    by LeaNder on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    The big flap on Jerusalem, brings to mind

    What exactly again? The working girl you said? Well, only if she is ... Some don't need to worry about working ...

    it wasn't literal (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    it doesn't bring to mind anything about working girls, it brings to mind the Carly Simon song from the now very dated movie Working Girl with Melanie Griffith, Sigorny Weaver, Harrison Ford and Joan Cusack that had the word Jerusalem in it. No deeper meaning -- it's a catchy tune, and You Tube had the original video with scenes from the movie. You may not know the movie, not having been in the US then, I've probably seen it half a dozen times.  The DNC flap just gave me an excuse to post the video which I love watching.

    slightly cryptic (none / 0) (#135)
    by LeaNder on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    Yes, Jeralyn, that was a bit cryptic maybe. I know both Carly Simon, and Working Girl, I just reminisced about American Democrats, or maybe the word democratic. And yes, on cue so to speak, East Jerusalem working girls came to mind, or at least the working girls in the diminishing parts of Jerusalem that aren't already taken over, or that already aren't already "de-Arabized".

    Appreciated. I love watching it, too (none / 0) (#138)
    by Towanda on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    and laughing at the thought of all of my jackets of that era with the massive shoulder pads.

    Other than that, I actually do not find the film dated.  And the song, never!


    Democracy in action? (none / 0) (#133)
    by LeaNder on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:20:54 PM EST
    a confusing moment: Chaos during Dem's platform vote

    I, No? really? Why not choose the same word to make the accoustics comparable?