New poll: Warren pulls ahead of Brown in Massachusetts

By Richard K. Barry

According to pollster Tim Vercellotti, commenting on Elizabeth Warren's 50% to 44% lead over Republican Sen. Scott Brown in a new poll conducted by the Western New England Polling Institute:

This may be not just due to her speech, but the overall enthusiasm Democrats have had coming out of their convention. The data shows that Democrats are more fired up right now than independents or Republicans. 

According to MassLive.com, one of the partners responsible for the poll:

The gap among registered voters is even larger, according to the survey, which concluded Warren leads 53 to 41 percent. The poll of 545 registered voters has a 4.2 percent margin of error, while the sample of 444 likely voters has a 4.6 percent margin of error.

Mr. Vercellotti also said that Warren's lead is attributable in part to the fact that she's firmed up support among Democrats to 89%, losing only 6% of her party's support to Brown.

Brown runs strong among those in his own party as well, but in Massachusetts there just aren't that many Republicans. As of August, 35% of the state's residents were registered Democrats and 11% Republicans, which is why Brown has been trying, and succeeding, in his bid to court independents. Still, that is not, for the moment, enough to overcome Warren's strength with Democrats.

It's too early to break out the bubbly, but these are good numbers for Warren in a race that has been tight for a long time.

As the pollster says:

When we poll again in the next couple of weeks, we will see if her numbers remain steady among Democrats, which may demonstrate that the party is unified under a continuing narrative that will carry on throughout the election season.

Maybe softening her supposedly too-tough image has helped, as I wrote a few days ago. Who knows?

(image)

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

I love the smell of desperation in the morning

By Carl 

So, how bad is it for Republicans supporting Mitt Romney?

The best they can do is claim it's still a horse race:

Want to start a business? Democrats laughed at the idea that a young man or woman might borrow money from his or her parents. The consensus at this convention was that they were entitled to take money from other people's parents. Delegates cheered at opportunities to take profits and property from the remaining, benighted, few Americans who still pay taxes instead of take taxes. 

In Charlotte, people who would never break into someone's home and take what was not theirs celebrated a government that uses tax law to do it for them. Then Clinton took the stage and, in a temporary expression of sanity, lectured Democrats about overindulging. You have to appreciate the irony in that.

Clinton said, "Don't you ever forget, when you hear them talking about this, that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office, and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic. President Obama's plan cuts the debt."

The comparison was poignant: If Obama had similarly embraced Simpson-Bowles or any kind of bold deficit reduction in his remarks the following night, he would be wiping the floor with the Romney campaign. 

As if he isn't already. The only poll that shows Romney with even half a chance of beating Obama is Rasmussen, and Rasmussen is practically the house organ (heh!) of the GOP. Indeed, Rasmussen shows Obama winning handily in three key battleground states Romney must win -- Florida, Ohio, and Virginia -- thus negating the "national" polling.

More desperation: Dinesh D'Souza calls out President Obama for using the "N" word in describing his father. There's the pot calling the kettle "house." His film having tanked miserably at the box office when compared to, oh, a re-release of a film from twenty years ago, D'Souza is now reduced to rolling his hat around his hands, stamping his feet and screeching, "LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!"

According to John McCain, Obama has weakened America. I'm sure Osama bin Laden agrees, and this is good news for the McCain campaign.

The New York Times editorial board has had to try to revitalize the Romney campaign using backhanded complimenting.

They're even making up countries that stopped existing twenty years ago!

The whole "apology tour" thing has been revived in the wake of Mitt Romney's comments that President Obama has been appeasing terrorists, or some such wording, spoken just as Ambassador Stevens was being beheaded in Benghazi.

Well, I guess we now know the definition of "putting lipstick on a pig."

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

New poll: Obama's remarkable post-convention bounce

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Given factors such as the 24/7 news cycle, the availability of information through multiple media and channels, and the hyper-partisanism of the electorate, it seems unlikely that political conventions will ever be like they once were, or ever have the importance they once had.

No longer do they introduce the presidential candidate to voters. Voters may start paying a bit more attention during the convention, to be sure, but the candidate is already widely known. The purpose now is to unify and energize the party and to try to sway media coverage and narratives for the final push to election day.

And so it would seem that meaningful "bounces" in the polls might just be things of the past as well. Which is to say, there will be bounces, maybe, just not significant ones -- just as Romney emerged from the Republican convention in Tampa with no real shift in his poll numbers.

And yet a new CNN poll shows significant movement for Obama following last week's remarkable Democratic convention in Charlotte:

A new survey indicates President Barack Obama moved up four points following the Democratic National Convention last week, and now has a six point advantage over his Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll (PDF) released Monday, 52% of likely voters nationwide back the president, compared to 46% for Romney. Just before the convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, Obama was tied with Romney 48%-48%.

Four points is huge, and it wasn't just the top-line numbers:

This year's Democratic event wiped away some of Romney's gains on personal qualities. The Republican nominee's favorable rating increased to 53% after the GOP convention, but fell to 48% one week later after the Democratic event. Meanwhile, Obama rose to 57% in the last week, his highest mark since 2010.

Obama also took away Romney's lead on leadership for the country's future. Now 51% of likely voters think Obama has a more optimistic vision for the country's future, compared to Romney at 41%. Last week, however, 43% said Obama was more optimistic, while 47% said the same about Romney.

Another takeaway from the two conventions was that Obama seemed to come out as the candidate with a more specific plan to help the country. Before the Republican event, 45% thought Romney was more likely to have a clear plan, while only 39% felt the same about the president. Now the two have switched places, with 45% saying Obama has a clear plan, compared 39% saying the same about Romney. 

Of course, it may not last -- and likely won't. But the polls, taken together, paint a pretty clear picture of where the race stands right now, and they show Obama emerging from the Democratic convention with significant upward momentum.

And Republicans, including the Romney campaign, are panicking.

Romney thinks the U.S. should have defaulted on its debt

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Do you have the remotest clue what you're talking about?

The Hill:

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" airing Sunday criticizes GOP leaders, including his own running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), for agreeing to the August 2011 debt-ceiling deal.

Romney was asked about the $109 billion automatic spending cut known as the sequester that is due to hit in January. Some $55 billion comes from the defense budget. 

*****

The debt-ceiling deal was forged by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Vice President Joe Biden hours before the United States was set to exceed its debt ceiling and begin defaulting on its obligations.

His point here is to attack the military spending cuts, and thereby to try to paint himself as tough on defense -- understandably so after his failure to thank the troops in his acceptance speech in Tampa and the Democrats' strong record on national security, on full display this past week in Charlotte.

It was President Obama, after all, who ordered the strike that took out Osama bin Laden. It has been President Obama who has aggressively targeted America's al Qaeda and Taliban enemies, with great success. And it is the Democrats, with President Obama leading them, and with so much good work done by Michelle Obama and others, who have provided America's men and women in uniform with so much support upon their return.

In contrast, Romney has proven to be not just a lightweight on foreign and military matters but an utter embarrassment, bringing ridicule upon himself throughout his overseas trip this summer and otherwise proving to be grossly ignorant on world affairs and U.S. policy. (Russia is America's #1 enemy?!)

But this isn't just about going hard on military spending, saying that he'd spend more than Obama, even though spending more for no reason other than to spend more, and without any real purpose, is a huge part of the current fiscal problem.

Looking back, as Romney does in this interview, it's about how these relatively meager cuts came to be, and that was through a last-minute deal, with the country standing on the brink of default, to avoid disaster. Even most Republicans at time time knew that the game was up, that a deal had to be done, that their ongoing efforts to hold the country hostage had to end, at least temporarily. Defaulting would have send shockwaves not just through the U.S. economy but around the world. This is why prior to that standoff, initiated by Republican ideological extremism and unwillingness to compromise with the president, presidents both Republican and Democratic had kept pushing for debt ceiling increases, and why Congress had always gone along.

And yet here's Mitt Romney, seeking the highest office in the land, offering himself to the American people as the sort of competent, business-savvy manager the country supposedly needs at this time of economic difficulty, criticizing even the extremists in his party who went along with the deal (like his own running mate), basically saying the country should have been allowed to go into default. And all because he wants to pretend he's a tough guy?

Look, this is the same guy who thought Detroit should go bankrupt. So it's hardly any wonder he now says the U.S. should just have defaulted on its debt.

It's incredibly irresponsible as a policy position, showing that his business experience doesn't mean he knows anything about actually running the country, and it's just another pathetic attempt to bolster his image as something other than a recklessly out-of-touch, flip-flopping opportunist.

Too bad for him it's just so transparently obvious.

Joe Walsh is a misogynistic asshole

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know Joe Walsh, right? No, not the guitarist. Not that one.

I'm talking about the right-wing Republican congressman from Illinois who in July said his challenger, Tammy Duckworth, a double amputee Iraq War vet, wasn't a "true hero," and who in August said the political winds were going to "pick this president up and pat him on the head and say, son, son, son, Mr. President, you were never ready to be president, now go home and work for somebody and find out how the real world works," disrespectful and racially inflammatory rhetoric, to be sure.

And those are just two examples.

Well, he's at it again, as ugly as ever, this time going after Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student whom Dear Leader Rush called a "slut," among other horrible things, simply because she argued that contraception (that she needs for health reasons) should be covered by insurance: 

At a campaign stop Saturday in Addison, IL, Walsh, who faces a tough reelection battle, went on a self-described rant about Fluke, attacking her support for contraception coverage and telling the law student to "get a job."

"So at the Democratic Convention Wednesday night their first prime time speaker was Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is," Walsh said. "Think about this, a 31-32 year old law student who has been a student for life, who gets up there in front of a national audience and tells the American people, 'I want America to pay for my contraceptives.' You're kidding me. Go get a job. Go get a job Sandra Fluke."

"This a woman who feels entitled that we all should pay for her contraceptives," he said. "This is what we are teaching Americans? That was embarrassing. That was embarrassing."

Um, no. Fluke is a law student at a prestigious school. She's getting an education. She doesn't need to get a job right now. 

Furthermore, it's not like Fluke, along with so many others, wants the government to subsidize some sort of depraved lifestyle (if you think that sort of thing is depraved). Many women need contraception (the pill, specifically) for serious health reasons. More than that, though, women want to be in control of their own bodies, to be able to make choices about their health, not to have a bunch of misogynistic men tell them what they can and cannot do. And what's more, if you want to reduce the number of abortions that are performed in the U.S., which is what almost all of us who are pro-choice want, the best way to do that is to make contraception widely available and accessible, and specifically to those who lack the resources to purchase it.

What Fluke said wasn't meant to be solely about Sandra Fluke. It was meant to be about all women -- and that's exactly the case Fluke made at the Democratic convention a few days ago. Maybe Fluke can afford contraception, maybe she can't. But what about the millions of women who can't?

Not that Walsh cares. This is a guy who didn't pay child support -- to the tune of more than $100,000. He disrespects education and obviously disrespects women. Actually, that's an understatment. It would seem he's a vindictive misogynist who thinks women should just shut the fuck up and do what they're told, much like what he thinks America's black president should do.

We all know Republicans are waging a war on women. With Walsh, it's personal.

Jingoism in politics

By Michael J.W. Stickings

An observation about the Democratic convention, and about U.S. politics in general:

As the commentariat stressed, the Democrats were incredibly "muscular" yesterday. Romney didn't bother to thank America's men and women serving in the military in his speech in Tampa last week, but both Biden and Obama did, both committing to support the troops, not least when they come home, but also to ensure that the U.S. retains its military dominance. There was a lot of tough talk. Yes, the Iraq War is over; yes, the Afghan War is coming to an end; but the U.S. under Obama and Biden will not shy away from wielding its military might.

I understand this, and the need for it, if only to overcome the ridiculous stereotype that Republicans are tough and Democrats are soft. And of course you need to do this sort of thing when you have all that Republican propaganda about how Democrats, and Obama in particular, are un-American. But I tend to recoil from militarism, and particularly from the sort of jingoistic militarism that is so much a part of U.S. politics and that was on display last night in Charlotte.

And it's not just the militarism. The usual "America is the greatest country in the world" rhetoric was flying all over the place yesterday, just as it did all week, just as it did last week with the Republicans in Tampa. It's the flag-waving jingoism that is de rigueur if you want to make it in American politics, if you want to avoid the un-American label. This is unfortunate, stunting debate and blinding Americans to the reality both of their own country and of the world beyond, blocking the sort of meaningful change that is needed in a constantly changing world. No one doubts America's power, but is it really the greatest country in the world? Is no other country even close? Can America just decide to lead the 21st century and have the rest of the world cower in the shadow of its awesomeness? I'm not so sure.

I love America a great deal. I'm not American in the sense that I'm a citizen (though everyone else who writes here is), but I'm an American in spirit, an American in almost every way (though I am mostly, I must stress, Canadian). My grandfather was in the U.S. Army and fought on the beaches in France, receiving a purple heart and becoming a radio broadcaster in occupied Germany and then back home doing baseball. I can trace my American heritage back, by marriage, to Davy Crockett. I have a lot of family, family I don't see nearly enough of, down in Alabama. I went to high school in New Jersey and college in Massachusetts. I have this blog dedicated to U.S. politics and culture. Yes, I love America, whatever mixed feelings I may have, and when I am critical it is only because I expect more, because I demand more, from a country that, yes, I do think can and should be great.

But so great as to reduce everything else, every other country, every other people, to relative oblivion, as if Americans are just better people than everyone else? That may play well on the stump, but it's the sort of mindless rhetoric that makes the rest of the world recoil in disgust.

For me, particularly when it comes from Democrats, it's just a huge disappointment (again, even if I understand why they're doing it and occasionally encourage it myself). I expect better of them, just as I expect better of America.

Thursday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I commented Tuesday and Wednesday nights, two fantastic nights for the Democrats in Charlotte, but it was all pointing to tonight, to Vice President Biden and then, just now, to President Obama. Here are my thoughts:

It was another strong day -- meaning that the convention proved to be an outstanding event, with three days showcasing the party at its finest. (And let's not forget how moving it was when Gabby Giffords appeared on stage to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.)

Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was excellent, as usual. She's presidential in her own right, though of course, having been born in Canada, she can't be president.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer was typically pugnacious, if not terribly compelling. Honestly, I think I've already forgotten most of what he said.

Former Florida Gov. (and Republican) Charlie Crist was given a prominent speaking slot on the final day of the convention just before the big three (Kerry, Biden, Obama) -- and perhaps it had to be that way given that he's a former Republican who is deeply critical of the Republican Party (saying that he didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left him, just as Reagan once explained his break from the Democratic Party) and is from key-swing-state Florida -- but I found his speech flat. He hit all the right points, but I'm not sure he did much to give Obama any sort of boost among independents and/or in Florida.

But then the evening really took off.

I've always liked John Kerry. A lot. To me, he's an incredibly decent, intelligent, and honorable man. I still harbor immense frustration and disappointment from the 2004 election.

But give him credit. It was a tough defeat to a terrible incumbent, with the shadow of 9/11 still hanging over the country and the Iraq War not yet quite the unmitigated disaster it became, but he want back to the Senate and established himself as the Democrats' elder statesman on foreign and military policy. So much so that he was in serious contention for the secretary of state post that eventually went to Hillary and could very well get the job when Hillary steps down, likely not long after the upcoming election. In my view, he deserves it and would do an outstanding job.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are incredibly weak on foreign and military policy, as well as on national security generally. Romney's disastrous foreign trip to England, Poland, and Israel this summer, along with the many embarrassing and ridiculous comments he has made during the campaign (e.g., Russia is America's #1 enemy), showed what a dangerous combination of arrogance and ignorance he would bring to the White House.

And so there was perhaps no better figure (given that Hillary as secretary of state shouldn't really get involved in partisan politics) to raise foreign and military policy at the convention and to draw the clear distinctions between President Obama and his opponent, and between the two parties generally: "We have a president who has made America lead like America again," he said. "What is there on the other side? An extreme and expedient candidate, who lacks the judgment and the vision so vital in the Oval Office." There's the contrast. There's the choice.

And then there was one of his best lines, and one of the best lines of the convention, a direct response to the Republican "are you better off than you were four years ago?" nonsense: "Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago."

To that, Mitt Romney has no response.

Joe Biden is always a concern. I think his propensity for making gaffes is way overblown, but there always seems to be the rist that he'll say something embarrassing. Tonight, he didn't. The only "gaffe" of sorts I caught was when he said Michelle Obama gave her speech last night (Wednesday) and then immediately corrected himself by saying it was on Monday. (It was Tuesday.)

Otherwise, it was a very strong speech. He's always gets a bit breathless when he lays on the gravitas, but he effectively combined his usual quirky folksiness (saying "folks" a lot) with some powerful and compelling personal stories about himself and others, a Biden strength. But actually I think he was at his best when he was talking about President Obama, about Obama's courage, about his unflinching leadership in the face of crisis, about his ability to make the tough decisions, like the one to order the raid that killed bin Laden, in a calm and determined manner. If Michelle Obama talked about Barack's character in personal terms, Biden talked about it in professional terms: This is what it's like to be at his side in the White House. This is how he leads. And it was very powerful.

And then there was Barack Obama.

Expectations were enormously high, as they usually are for his major speeches. They were certainly higher than they were last week for Romney, who just had to present himself as something other than a robotic asshole to exceed them. For the president, he was following some outstanding speeches by some towering figures, notably Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton, and the up-and-coming Julian Castro. They all made the case for him, all extremely well, but with the economy still struggling, and with the polls showing a tight race and an approval rating that isn't great, he had to make the case himself, for himself, without seeming arrogant, without taking credit for too much, without promising too much, and by straddling that fine line between president and presidential candidate.

And he did that. Maybe not gloriously, maybe not with the soaring rhetoric of four years ago, maybe not by inspiring us and even moving us to tears the way he has done before, but by being presidential. Yes, David Gergen said it best: it was a mature speech, a presidential speech, and in that way it struck the right balance.

Sure, it was, to me, a bit SOTU-y at times. It started off a bit flat, picked up a bit, then fell back into a SOTU-style checklist without much in the way of detailed pledges, and perhaps it was all a bit off here and there. Richard and I were e-mailing throughout and that's the point he was making almost until the end. It just seemed... off. Just slightly, but somehow off. I agree, but I think it was because of the line he was trying to walk between being presidential and being the sort of uplifting candidate he was four years ago. But you could see he was almost there, almost there, almost there, and then he was, back to his usual form, with some truly stirring moments and a fantastic conclusion, uplifting and inspirational but tempered by the gravitas of being president.

Looking back, giving some grades to the major speakers, I'd say Deval Patrick got an A, Julian Castro got an A-, Michelle Obama got an A+, Sandra Fluke got an A (not least as a non-politico new to the national stage), Elizabeth Warren got a B, Bill Clinton got an A+ (with the highlight of the convention, just ahead of Michelle's speech), John Kerry got an A, Jill Biden got a B+, and Joe Biden got an A-.

And the president? Richard says B+. I'm going to be a bit more generous and say A-, mainly because he faced an enormous degree of difficulty and succeeded at an extraordinarily tough task.

President Obama did what he needed to do tonight. The party exceeded expecations this week, while he just met them. And perhaps there won't be much of a bounce in the polls (maybe we shouldn't even expect such things anymore). But with this speech tonight the president announced that he is ready to go hard the next two months defending his record and reaching out to voters with a message of hope bolstered by an understanding that the challenges America faces are not easy ones to ovecome, that it will take time to fix the enormous problems that persist.

America is on the right track because of what he has done as president, because of the leadership he has brought to the White House. As Biden said, Obama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive and well. There is more to be done, but a lot of good has been doing already. 

With the convention drawing to a close tonight, three incredible days, it is now time to move forward. Barack Obama and Joe Biden need our undivided support. There must be no turning back.

Fact-checking Bill Clinton

By Mustang Bobby

I am sure the Orcosphere was lying in wait for the fact-checkers to go over Bill Clinton's speech last night, waiting to pounce on the slightest misstatement. Well, I hate to pee on their Wheaties, but FactCheck.org couldn't find much to pounce on:

Former President Bill Clinton's stem-winding nomination speech was a fact-checker's nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.

Republicans will find plenty of Clinton's scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out.

But hey, the Romney campaign said they wouldn't be dictated by fact-checkers, anyway. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords leads the Pledge of Allegiance at the DNC

By Richard K. Barry

 
If you missed it, here's a clip of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords leading the Pledge of Allegiance at the Democratic National Convention earlier today.

Giffords has clearly made wonderful progress since having been shot on January 8, 2011, outside a Safeway grocery store northwest of Tuscon.

She did great.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Photo of the Day: Hillary watches Bill's DNC speech

By Richard K. Barry

According to Politico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was able to watch a taped version of Bill Clinton’s speech Thursday morning in Timor-Leste, 9,930 miles from the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

Worth repeating: Michelle Obama rocks

By Richard K. Barry

John Heilemann wrote about First Lady Michelle Obama's speech on Tuesday night in New York Magazine, calling it "one of the most extraordinary convention turns I have witnessed in more than two decades in this racket."

He continued:

Her own high-stakes debut came four years ago at the Democratic convention in Denver, in a speech that sought to dispel the negative impressions of her -- as a haughty, aggrieved, and even angry black woman -- that had been propagated in some quarters. And so it did, and then some. Since then, MRO's public image has been pure gold; with an approval rating of 66 percent, she is more popular than her husband (and any other Democrat save the Clintons) by a mile.

And yet, for all that, what no one could have fully appreciated was how much she has grown and the heights she has attained as a political performer -- until last night, that is. Purely at the level of stage presence and oratorical execution, Michelle was close to flawless: warm and natural, charming and convincing, passionate and pitch-perfect, giving off such a natural and comfortable affect that it was almost possible to forget that she was, you know, performing.

Well said, John.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Game over

By Carl

The Big Dog -- The Greatest. President. Ever. -- has spoken:

We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."

Who's right? Well, since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million.

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.

Clinton was too modest to admit that he was in office when 23 million of those jobs were created-- nearly matching the entire Republican army of presidents -- and as such is overseer of the single biggest economic engine since World War II. And if you exclude jobs created due to World War II, he is by far the president who oversaw the creation of the most jobs in American history.

Period. Eight years of relative peace and undeniable prosperity for all. And he did it by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Ronald Reagan was called the Great Communicator, but never once did he ever have to seriously defend his abysmal economic record for the middle class. Indeed, very quietly in his second term, Reagan instituted the greatest tax hike on the American people since the income tax was instituted, and still barely created jobs. Unemployment under Reagan's tax schemes still averaged 7.5%, not much lower than Barack Obama's rate, and Reagan almost single-handedly created the homeless population of America. This, despite sending American troops overseas nearly continuously.

Epic. Fail.

Back to Clinton's speech: it had nearly everything you'd wish Barack Obama could say, and indeed may have been written with an eye towards the freedom an ex-president -- one who has established his bona fides as someone who has disagreements with the current Oval Office -- has to comment on the "loyal" opposition. This paragraph in particular stands out:

Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats.

Coming from a man who was disgraced by the same party that now terrorizes the American people, forced to defend his personal life time and time again from the idiocracy inherent on the right wing, to say that even he can empathize and love his enemies is a powerful statement that will resonate with the American people.

After all, it was only 15 years ago. We ain't that dumb. It was a noble and gracious sentiment and yet still stabbed at the heart of the Teabaggers in ways no other Democrat could.

Clinton dismantled the economic "policy" that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have both signed onto, and countered that cronies were more important to Romney and Republicans than jobs.

But this, this I think was Clinton's strongest argument of the night:

No president -- not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the President's contract you will feel it.

President Obama inherited an economy teetering on the precipice of another Great Depression. We, as a people, won't credit him with saving it from disaster because the only way we could is if the disaster actually happened, the tape rewound, and the President steps in to save us in re-runs.

But Clinton laid out the case magnificently, using arithmetic and logic, and laid it out in language that the average person watching in his living room could understand.

It's a talent he has. It's a talent I can only aspire to as I write these pitiful little blogposts to you, my readers.

And now for a couple of side notes:

1) Tonight, President Obama will accept the party nomination for president. Last night, the last Democratic president was trotted out for a barnburner of a speech, but where was his wife?

She was in East Timor. Under the guise of "the secretary of state should not attend political conventions," because, you know, politics stop at our shores. Right?

It would not surprise me, however, if Madam Secretary has an August surprise up her sleeve to bring home tonight, just ahead of the evening news cycle.

2) I would be remiss if I didn't mention the speech given by Elizabeth Warren, Senate candidate from Massachussetts. Between her and the Big Dog, it was a wonky night, but a wonky night that was easily digestible by anyone who sat in front of a television and paid attention. She's a gifted explainer and I am sure that Massachussetts recognizes "smaht" when they see it.

3) Michelle Obama Tuesday night. Bill Clinton Wednesday night. They have stirred the convention, the national media and the electorate into a rhetorical frenzy. Either this convention has been one of the best choreographed conventions to re-introduce a president to his people, and Barack Obama has the greatest speech of his life in him (not an easy task, given how many great ones he has given), or the convention fizzles tonight. Either way, it will make for great television.

The people in the arena in Charlotte stood and cheered. For the Dems, the people at home have stood and cheered right along with the delegates.

Game over.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(photo)

(For my comments about Tuesday, see here.)

There were some great moments today, along with a bit of overblown controversy over "God" and Jerusalem, and some great speeches. Let's focus briefly on the most prominent ones of the evening:

-- Sandra Fluke. She's hardly a political pro, but that made her speech all the more remarkable. She spoke with confidence and conviction as one of the most prominent targets of the Republican war on women. Ann Romney says women should "wake up." Really? It seems to me that women are already awake to the Taliban Republicans who seek to control them. Just look what happened to Fluke, whom Dear Leader Rush called a slut simply for wanting to be able to make her own choices. The convention is dominated by politicians, of course, but sometimes you need to hear from the non-politicians to get a sense of the human implications of the ugliness and brutality of Republican ideology. And Fluke did an impressive job, to say the least.

-- Elizabeth Warren may not be the most dynamic figure ever to grace the national stage, but she's a powerful voice for liberalism, particularly when it comes to financial regulation. Her speech doesn't stand out the way Julian Castro's did last night, but it was nonetheless effective at drawing the clear distinctions between the two parties and the two presidential candidates. And hopefully it will give her a boost back home in Massachusetts, where she's in a tough race with incumbent Scott Brown, who alternately presents himself as a moderate or a right-wing hardliner depending on the audience to which he's sucking up. In stark contast, Warren is a woman of genuine principle, and that came through in abundance tonight.

-- How awesome is Bill Clinton? Seriously, what an amazing speech. It was long, and it meandered at times, occasionally feeling like one of his own State of the Union addresses, occasionally going into a bit too much detail perhaps, but he was as commanding as ever -- folksy and authoritative, persuasive and inspiring, funny and enlightening. If Michelle Obama spoke about Barack the man, the personality and character, Bill Clinton spoke about Barack the leader, the policies and politics, and he was just as much a champion of the president. (He's just wrapping up as I write this.) He held the room and those present, and those watching on TV, in his hand, speaking with compassion and respect, understanding and conviction, drawing the contrasts just like other speakers have done but also compellingly making the case for coming together -- because, as he said, we're all in this together, this historical quest for a more perfect union. A formidable man. A brilliant speech. 

Wolf Blitzer says it just might have been the best speech he's ever heard Clinton give. That's high praise.

And there he is, President Obama coming out on stage to greet President Clinton and to give a wave to the crowd. You knew it was coming, but it was stirring nonetheless, a prelude to tomorrow, when he will accept the nomination. The energy in the arena is palpable. I can feel it here, a long way away. (If only I was there. Alas.)

Paul Begala on Clinton's speech: substantive and riveting. Yes, that's it. He knows his stuff, for sure, and can speak so intelligently on so much, but he's also so engaging, so compelling, and, yes, he does it without talking down to anyone, and quite the reverse by lifting everyone up along with him (which of course is so unlike the Republicans, including Romney and Ryan, who are arrogant and dismissive and utterly contemptuous of anyone other than themselves and those just like them).

For all the tension that may have been there during the '08 Democratic primaries, there is a close and it would seem completely genuine connection between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. That was on full display tonight, and it was just what was needed as we head into the final day of the convention, and then into the last two months of the campaign.

Another great day for the Democrats.

(photo)

The amazingly quotable Ted Strickland

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I mentioned last night that Ted Strickland's speech was one of the highlight's of the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. He made a forceful case for President Obama -- and against Mitt Romney. And he was hilarious.

Here are some of the choicer quotes:

-- "If Mitt was Santa Claus, he'd fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."

-- "Mitt Romney has so little economic patriotism that even his money needs a passport. It summers on the beaches of the Cayman Islands, and winters on the slopes of the Swiss Alps."

-- "Barack Obama is betting on the American worker. Mitt Romney is betting on a Bermuda shell corporation. Barack Obama saved the American auto industry. Mitt Romney saved on his taxes."

So funny... because it's so true.

Enjoy:

More like a thud

By Mustang Bobby

Most candidates get some kind of bounce up in the polls after a convention no matter what the eventual outcome is. Walter Mondale did in 1984 and so did George McGovern in 1972 and both of them got walloped in the election the following November. So a bounce is, in the words of the brokerage house disclaimer, not a predictor of future earnings.

Still, it must be disheartening to the Republicans when, after their big blow-out in Tampa, they see that Gallup shows that Mitt Romney got bupkus:

Last week's Republican National Convention had a minimal impact on Americans' self-reported voting intentions, with just about as many saying the convention made them less likely to vote for Mitt Romney as say it made them more likely to vote for him.

One theory for this lackluster response that I see rattling through the tubes is that thanks to Twitter, Facebook, texting, blogging, and the constant feed from the cable channels and YouTube, all of the anticipation and surprise has been taken out of the conventions. Voters who are paying attention have already made up their collective mind about the candidates. Nothing they hear coming out of Tampa or Charlotte is going to move the needle.

That puts the pressure on the Democrats to really come up with something that they think will move the electorate, and I'm sure they're going to try. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Tuesday at the Democratic National Convention

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We probably won't be doing any live-blogging of the proceedings in Charlotte, but we'll be doing a lot of writing about the convention. (I was on vacation during the Republican one, which is why Richard was handling lead-blogger duties. In Prince Edward Island, my favorite place in the world, I just didn't want all the Republican lies and distortions, all the ugliness and brutality, to ruin the wonderful time I was having.)

So stay tuned, and keep coming back, for a lot of new posts from us. Already Wednesday is lining up to be a very busy day.

Having just watched much of what happened this evening, here are some quick thoughts:

-- Ted Strickland is hilarious, and amazingly quotable. More on that tomorrow.

-- Deval Patrick gave a remarkably eloquent and moving speech. Here are some highlights:

The list of accomplishments is long, impressive, and barely told... With a record like that and a vision that powerful and hopeful, I will not stand by and let him be bullied out of office -- and neither should you.

And:

We believe that government has a role to play, not in solving every problem in everybody's life, but in helping people help themselves to the American Dream. That's what Democrats believe. That's what Americans believe. And if we want to win elections in November and keep our country moving forward, if we want to earn the privilege to lead, it's time for Democrats to grow a backbone and stand up for what we believe.

Republicans are already twisting this to mean that Democrat think it's all about government and more government, but of course that's not what Patrick said. What he said -- and this was echoed later by Julian Castro (more on that in a moment) -- was that government (the government of "We the People," let us not forget, a democratic government, not the authoritarian one Republicans seem to think rules the country with an iron fist) has a key role to play in helping those who can't help themselves, those who, for example, lack the fortune and privilege into which someone like Mitt Romney was born, that it can help level the playing field and provide opportunity to those who simply would not otherwise have any.

That is indeed what we believe, and we should not shy away from expressing it.

-- Julian Castro is being called a rising star, but to me he's already there. It's just a matter of how high he can go. He was outstanding in giving the keynote speech tonight. A great speech, a great performance. Clearly, the point was to reach out to Latinos, who are already overwhelmingly supportive of Obama, but more broadly he effectively drew the sharp contrast between Obama and Romney, between the Democrats and the Republicans. On the one side, the president's side, is hope and opportunity, and indeed Castro's success, along with that of his twin brother Joaquin, who introduced him, is a story of opportunity and making the most of it. On the other side, the Romney-Ryan side, is privilege and, I would add, brutality, a celebration of Hobbes's state of nature as channelled through Ayn Rand.

Very, very well done.

-- Michelle Obama. What can I say? She was amazing. (Wolf Blitzer said something like, "She didn't hit a home run... uh, she hit a grand slam." I agree with the assessment, and appreciate the sentiment, though his knowledge of baseball is embarrassingly limited, it would seem.) It was the most powerful speech, and quite possibly the best speech, I've ever seen (or heard) by a first lady or would-be first lady, but really it stood on its own as one of the best convention speeches ever delivered by anyone, far superior to the "we're not really a couple o' rich douchebags" speech by Ann Romney last week in Tampa, reaching out to women, with whom Republicans are at war, but more generally making a truly compelling case not just for her husband but for what he stands for, what he fights for, for what they stand and fight for together, alongside their fellow Democrats.

Michelle can make an awesome case for Barack. And that's just what she did tonight, capping off an exceptional day for the Democrats.

What a way to get the convention rolling.

Bill Clinton in the bright lights again

By Richard K. Barry

We learned yesterday that former President Bill Clinton will play a key part in the Democratic National Convention, formally placing President Obama's name in nomination. According to The New York Times, he'll deliver a prime-time speech that will "present a forceful argument for why Mr. Obama deserves to win a second term."

It hasn't always been easy between Bill and Barack, but there is little doubt the former president's appearance will provide significant drama. Bill Clinton is certainly one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party, even outside the party.

And where will former President Bush and his sidekick Dick be during the GOP convention? Why, somewhere else. Isn't that interesting...

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)