The 2008 Democrat Convention

I'd do her. Is that sexist?

Well it IS real executive experience no matter how much anybody wants to play it down. It is certainly more executive experience than McCain, Obama, or Biden can claim since none of them have ANY executive experience. So if we're talking about experience, is some better than none?

As for her conservative credentials, is those conservative credentials that JPB laid out there (as criticism I think) which I appreciated and those conservative credentials are reassuring to me.

As for her being next in line to be President, the odds that she won't have some time to get her sea legs in Washington before she might have to assume that role are almost nil. And frankly, given her point of view about how it all should be, I would much rather take a chance with her than with Barack Obama who is even less 'experienced' in managing anything than she is.

Than there is also the issue that if something happened to Barack, God forbid and I sincerely mean that, we get Biden who after all is only six years younger than McCain. And if he doesn't make it to the end of his term, we get to Pelosi. I can't tell you how scary the thought of that is to me.

In this day and age, one you reach early middle age, six years is no difference at all. If Obama is elected and served two terms, Biden will be 73. Likely to run for his 4 or 8 years? I don't know. But. . . .

Or we could have four or eight years of an imminently qualified John McCain who would then pass the mantle to a bright, articulate, committed to public service, Sarah Palin who would have four or eight years experience with the system in addition to what she initially brings to it. I think I like the idea of that.

Honest question:

Obama and McCain have each been running their campaigns for about as long as Palin has been governor of Alaska. I wonder what the logistics are? Simply in terms of executive experience -- which is the larger operation?

(I could probably find out with some searching, here for just a second though.)

Good point. I would add that Obama's operation has been stunningly successful in every way, as well.

Cycloptichorn

Two words -- Jimmy Carter

As I said before, executive experience is not on the list of things I consider. Position on the issues is. Her gender, experience, hair, friends, income, or anything other than her position of social and international issues will sway my vote. As a true moderate independent, I have just jumped over to the left side of the fence, whereas I was fairly balanced and waiting for the debates and campaign a few short hours ago.

Understood JPB. If we all appreciated and wanted the same things in a candidate, elections wouldn't really be necessary at all. I think if those things you listed are what drove you 'over the fence' though, you were probably more left than right of center to begin with. Just an observation though. Not a judgment since nobody knows your heart but you.

Those things are qualities that I appreciate in a candidate, however, so they serve to reassure me that Sarah has the stuff that I want in a candidate.

I know a lot of doll house girls that are really cute... but they belong on a pole.... not in the White house.

I didn't say her looks made her qualified. But they don't disqualify her either.

Palin's skimpy background, thus far, is not sufficient executive experience, or any kind of real substantive governmental experience, to prepare one for a job at the level of VP. She might be an up and comer, but she hasn't even completed one term as governor of a small state, and before that served only as the mayor of a tiny town. She has no legislative or federal experience at all. With much more qualified people within the Republican party to choose from, including much more qualified women, I am genuinely baffled by this choice on the part of McCain.

McCain, Obama and Biden all have some executive experience, and it is nonsense to suggest that they do not. They have all managed campaigns, they manage large staffs as Senators, they chair committees, they have to negotiate and strongarm to get legislation passed, they appoint and fire people, etc.

Were Palin not a woman, I doubt that she would be on the ticket at all. But, being a woman is not sufficient reason to have her on the ticket. Given her lack of substantive government experience I can only surmise that she was selected mainly for her religious-political views and her gender. If that is the main criteria Republicans use to chose the potential leaders of our country, they are being too irresponsible to be trusted with the two highest offices in the land.

I can't believe that the majority of Republicans are really happy with McCain's choice of Palin, although they are not in a position to acknowledge that without undermining their candidate. She is likely to prove far more controversial than beneficial, and McCain may just have burdened himself with a choice he will live to regret.

Before this thread trails off anymore into the other news. The DNC was a big success IMO. They preempted the republican's very well. Additionally, the republicans did very poorly at stealing any of the thunder.

McCain's VP pick was bold. It's going to rise the excitement level in the campaign, but it undermines his largest attack (worth considering) on Obama: Experience. The most prevalent attack on Obama is still that his campaign is built on personality. McCain is yet to really outline his ideas, something that many of his supporters are willing to attack Obama on. Many try to spoil the good spirits of Obama's amazing speech ability by claiming he offers nothing concrete. Where has McCain shown himself to be more concrete? With McCain only choosing to attack Obama in his ads , McCain ironically reinforces the notion that we should consider personality. If we know little about both candidates plans, and are only given what they offer, we have a candidate that empowers us, and one that seems petty. McCain better realize that the attack ads are great for catching media, and despite the fact that they led to an increase in polling in a time when Obama's momentum was very strong, they've all but expired the American attention span.

Both McCain and Obama's picks will help them.

Obama's will help him in the White House.
McCain's will help him on the campaign trail. At least that's the theory. I'm unsure how it will play out.

Every night at the DNC, it was stellar. Each night came with a fresh prospective and was thought provoking. The democratic narrative began to converge, and it's forming as a force of nature.

I'm just not sure how the reds are going to match it. The problem for them is that Bush is going to speak, and when he does, the republicans will be forced with a dilemma.

One, show your disapproval to GWB, and risk showing a kink in the republican armor. No republican wants to let on that there is any cracks in the GOP.

Two, applaud like crazy to raise the energy for McCain. The problem with this option is that it reinforces what the Democrats are saying about the Republicans being the SOP (same old party).

Bush polls so poorly and that includes the GOP base. So what happens? I'm betting on the latter of the two.

Either way, the game is on. All the players are here.

Some notable things from the speakers of the DNC.

Michelle Obama - She did awesome. What was perfect about her speech was that she painted her husband as a man, and crushed the messiah meme so shamelessly put forth by the right. Personal highlight was when she talked about workers that lost their job in Chicago.

"They weren't looking for a handout. They were ready to work. They wanted to contribute."

I don't know if I've ever heard it better put.

Hillary Clinton - She moved to accept Obama by acclimation. She delivered a very good speech. the highlight to me was actually the speech she gave the day before to the NY delegation. She was casual, and excited to be at the DNC. She did an excellent job helping win over many of her supporters. It felt like a return to the energy she had when she was still campaigning.

Bill Clinton - Straight and to the point. Bill laid down a very easy to follow formula for the democrats to address the republicans. In short, he talked through the republican economic platform and destroyed it. Moreover, you didn't have to take his word for it, he clearly articulated exactly how each GOP idea had been tested and failed. Superb.

John Kerry - He separated "Senator McCain" from "Candidate McCain." He outlined exactly how McCain was failing to deliver even himself to this election. He addressed the nature of the McCain camps ad campaign, and challenged us to see it what it is was.

A side note on Kerry: I'm a little mad when watching him these days. He has become a significantly better speaker, and extremely better and communicating himself with personality and charisma. WHY WERE THESE SKILLS 4 YEARS LATE!!!!!! Okay I'm done.

Joe Biden - Biden did a great job jumping on board. He did well at integrating himself into the momentum Obama had. His speech was good (not great IMO) but it was perfect for what it needed to be: A voice of experience validating Obama's vision as achievable.

Barrack Obama - Honestly, I was worried about his speech beforehand. I worried that he wouldn't adjust his speech clearly, and I was worried that he would not be firm enough. He rested every worry I had. He used numbers. He gave dates/times for his ideas; he made them measurable. He delivered with conviction and confidence his plan very clearly and showed a toughness that critics we're skeptical he could muster. He illustrated with poise that he can be firm in ways McCain can't seem to grasp.

An overwhelming success.

In Minneapolis, it's going to look like amateur open mic night.

T
K
O

Very nice post, Diest.

Reminds me of something I wanted to add to the convention discussion.

A TON of people watched. More than the Oscars. 25% of all American homes. 38.4 million total.

That's great news -- the more that Obama can be seen by people directly, unfiltered, the happier I am.

to my surprise, i feel a whole lot better about obama after his thursday speech.

mixed in with alla the usual stuff, he said a couple of things that really struck me. since we dvr'd all of the main speeches (hill, bill, joe, al and barak), i'm gonna take some time and listen to obie's again.

some are a little put out that he didn't totally shank mccain, and said that he didn't want to get all personal. but, i kind of like that. mccain seems to be a good enuff guy personally.

his policy views are chock full of targets though. have at 'em, dude.
---
sarah palin? good grief. who's from sarah palin??

while i agree that she looks pretty good (lose the specs babe...), i don't see how the rnc can make any further attacks on the dem ticket in terms of who's experienced, ready and ethical.

i don't consider it ethical to use your political office to punish someone for a personal foul. brother in law beat up your sister? call a cop, then call a lawyer. i 'spect john edwards has time on his schedule book. (dude, you really disappointed me..)

now, my niece has lived in juno for over ten years. my wife was visiting her there the last two weeks. according to what she says, the rumour is that when palin announced herself as being 7 months pregnant with trigg, she didn't look at all pregnant, as she had with her other carries. then she disappears for a few months.

when she reappeared, it seems that her oldest daughter is always carrying the baby. hmmmm... just sayin'...

in any case, she doesn't strike me as a pick that will make the ticket a winner. but then, mccain is kind of a throw away candidate to me theses days anyway.

here's to the end of the 30 year plan. ppppffffftttttttttt!

obama/biden in '08?

cool with me.

OK so my last three posts are the same damn thing -- just saying "nice post!," basically -- but I can't let this one go by with just a thumbs-up. I'm glad to get your take, and glad your take is what it is.

hey soz! tah!

my skepticism on obama has had more to do with my disappointment with gore, my really big disgust with kerry and the general state of politics more than anything b.o. has or hasn't done this cycle.

if we can get him elected, there's at least a chance that we can fix some of this stuff and maybe dismantle bush's assorted attempts to turn america into a fascist version of the roman empire.

man does not live by bread alone, ya know?

You're absolutely correct, cyclo. Already they're trying to rewrite history. But I don't think she would have won just with more money. She would have had more money to piss away, that's all. It was mismanaging her money, excess baggage and selecting the wrong campaign team. For me, that translates to someone not ready for the presidency. She stood in her own way.

Diest, your post broke it down perfectly.

With all the great posts, I sure won't try to add my bit. I just want to say that, as a person who lived through the memorable time of MLK, the look on so many older faces, black and white, brought tears to my eyes.

It has finally come to pass.

Diane, would you read the following link I provide? Perhaps you know the contents, perhaps you don't?

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican

MLK was a Republican. Here is the first paragraph of the link:

"It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism."

As with the rights of blacks, it is now the Republican Party that has picked a woman vp, not an elitist lawyer as Ms. Clinton, but an actual person out there doing things, managing, serving as mayor, and as now governor of Alaska. You will also see feminists that will viciously attack this woman, and try to destroy her, much like the black community has done to certain black individuals, simply because of their party affiliation.

My point is this. The celebration over Obama as a black candidate has more to do with the fact that he is a candidate pushing a socialist agenda, not that he is a black candidate. If the Republican party was now running a black candidate, such as Michael Steele, he would be attacked, demeaned. and attempted to be destroyed, and in fact his candidacy was defeated by such a program in his home state. We also saw it with Clarence Thomas, the attacks were vicious, from liberal left black community. as well as the Democrat Party.

Just wanted to point it out it isn't race, it is political agenda. The civil rights movement has morphed into a socialist movement. It is no longer the same as it used to be, when MLK was a historical leader, and a Republican, for good reason.

Is that why more than 90% of the Dems in Denver this past week were markedly obese?

Is that why universal health care is such a big item?

Good post Diest (although God I wish you would lose the TKO affectation)

Let's examine it in more detail though.



That simply isn't the truth. The timing of McCain's announcement of the Palin selection was obviously intended to interupt the Dem convention news flow, and it worked. I was in the Atlanta airport when he made the announcement and CNN (no FOX News they) covered it like a blanket. They tried to throw in commentary about Obama's speech, but it was obviously gratuitous.

"The Story" today was not Obama's speech from yesterday, it was the Palin selection.

You might want to think otherwise, but if you adopt an objective perspective you will have to admit that the Republicans pulled off a media coup.



Not really. The people at these conventions (Republican and Democratic alike) are true believers they drink the kool-aide and will cheer any speaker (unless it is a windbag named Clinton who in 1988 was booed by the delegates until he spoke these words "And so in conclusion...")

The delegates are going to be way up for Bush, and don't underestimate how such a scene can impact John Q Public's perception of the man. This is Hollywood Conventions and the Republicans have proved they are as good or better than the Democrats at them.

Bush's approval rating is indeed low but the Democratically controlled congress's is even lower (single digit!). Did this stop the Dems from featuring Pelosi and Reid in their convention? Of course not.



A matter of opinion.

Good God, are you yet another Lib who loves to throw around "meme?" Really, your insistance that this theoretical concept only applies to conservatives is laughable. Have you actually read "The Selfish Gene?"

You really need to try and regard this speeches with objectivity and not partisan slavishness.

She is a decent public speaker, but she began almost every sentence with "See..." That could not possibly be the design of a public speaking coach and had to be the result of nerves. OK, not a big deal, but it does question whether or not she gave The Sermon on the Mount.

More importantly, her expression of love for America was a transparent attempt to counter her "For the first time in my adult life..." comment.

Some Dem operative interviewed by the media after the Michelle speech said something to the effect of "Well that certainly puts to bed any notion that Michelle isn't proud of America!"

Really? Do these operatives (Dem or Repub alike) really believe the American people are so stupid? Whether or not her original comments are of significance, her remedial speech didn't put the issue to bed.

If you wanted to like her speech, you probably did.



An excellent speech but it was intended (and delivered) to enhance Hillary more than Obama.

Think back to 2004 when Rudy, Arnold, and McCain all got up to speak in support of George Bush. In each instance they were almost sickening in their praise for W --- that's what they were supposed to do!

Did Hillary do the same?

No objective observer can say she did, and the camera panning on Michelle proved as much. One look (and we got many) at Michelle face during the Hillary speech told us that it wasn't what the Obama campaign wanted it to be.



He was great, as usual and yet he really wasn't featured. This is a former two term president of the USA and he didn't get a primo speech spot?



Please. This is an entirely partisan evaluation.

Kerry is a terrible speaker now and before. Can you spell P-O-M-P-O-U-S?



Yes he did a good job " jumping on board. "

Something of a waste of Biden's talents, but that's the role for which he opted.

As some candidate said long ago: The Vice Presidency is like a bucket of warm piss.



The history rather than his rhetoric, carried the day.

Not, at all, a bad speech (I don't think he's capable of a bad speech), but certainly not a great one. What line from that speech will Americans be repeating 10 years from now? None.



You seem like a love struck teenager.

It may, indeed, have overwhelmed you, but you were poised to be overwhelmed.

The most generous polling gave Obama a 8 point bump after the convention.

That really is weak and should be worrying his campaign.

The GOP conventions have surpassed the Dem versions for, at least, the last 8 years. I suspect the organizers haven't lost their touch and they can do well without creating the utterly pretention Barrackacropolis.

But, we'll see. Hopefully you can watch it with some measure of objectivity.