I watched my New York Football Giants do what I least like to watch them do, which is lose to the Dallas Cowboys. I probably should have watched the convention instead, since I hear that Bill Clinton killed it. That doesn’t surprise me. What were your impressions of the night?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I have class every day until 10 so I only got to catch Warren and Clinton.
Clinton, what can I say, the rumors are true, he knocked it out of the park, chased it down and knocked it again. He took Ryan’s lying speech head-on, addressing the $716 billion and the welfare work requirement lies directly. He got a great laugh line in about Ryan having “some brass” for the $716 bil. Watch it, it’s almost 50 minutes long, but you’ll enjoy it.
Warren did OK, I guess, but I get the impression that she doesn’t like the whole speech thing. She stepped on her best applause lines repeatedly, but the thing is, it didn’t look like an accident, like the sort of mistake someone unused to public speaking might do. She opened her speech by actually telling the audience to stop applauding.
She got a great reception in Charlotte, but I’m not feeling real good about her prospects in MA. Charisma almost always wins over substance, and Brown seems to have no problem with charisma.
I haven’t been following the polling, but a quick look at RCP shows the latest poll there (PPP Aug 21) has Brown up by 5 points, 49-44. What’s the rule? Undecideds tend to break for the incumbent or the challenger? It’s the incumbent, right?
In other news, Charles Krauthammer is an idiot.
The r’s know quite a lot about empty seats…now.
The rule of thumb is they break for the challenger, but it’s not always true. I agree with your assessment of Warren. Good but not great speech. She’s the kind of candidate who appeals to intellectuals but not ordinary people to the same extent. A great spokesperson for progressive ideals but not a great candidate.
Clinton totally hit it out of the park. Totally! Totally! And I tend to be fairly cynical about hype and politics. One of the best speeches I’ve ever seen. He has traveled a huge distance since his flat speech in 1988. Wow!
Swell.
Ryan’s kind of Democrat.
“The era of Big Government is over.”
A Judas goat if ever there was one.
Yes. I’m not a big fan on Clinton. In a lot of ways, he’s like Romney. The guy has no moral core. He would be perfectly happy to sit down and have a beer with Karl Rove. He had Lanny Davis and Dick Morris, slimes of the first degree, in his inner circle. He hurt the party and the county in many ways.
But unlike Romney, he’s got presence and amazing political skills. If there’s a sociopathic political genius wandering around, I’m glad he’s on our side.
“…he’s on our side?”
True only for those that accept the redefinition of what liberalism and the Democratic Party stand for. Plus the guy put “our side” through a couple of years of hell with his personal shenanigans.
I’m not a fanboy either, but I think he moved Obama a significant step closer to victory with this speech. Right now that’s as much “our side” as needed.
Obama got himself elected without any help from Clinton. –sigh– but Democrats/liberals just don’t get that Clinton has negative coattails at best.
When Hillary was running and losing to Obama, Bill went kind of nuts and definitely hurt more than he helped.
But Clinton is most effective with exactly the kind of “Democrats” that Obama has the most difficulty attracting. Some people are turned off by Obama’s complexion. Some are alienated by his professorial demeanor and style. Some can’t connect with him because he seems distant and self-reliant.
Bill Clinton has none of those problems. Add to this that there are still some Clinton supporters who have butt-hurt about Obama’s victory and they need Bill to tell them it’s okay to get on board.
Today, Bill Clinton is a great asset for Obama.
Facts tend to inform my assessments and Congress is as important as the WH.
The theory is that people know the incumbent better than the challenger. As a result, someone who is undecided probably isn’t too thrilled with the incumbent, and is already primed to vote for change. If the challenger proves to be a credible alternative, most undecideds will opt for the challenger.
In other words, the late deciders tend to break against the incumbent.
However, this is obviously not the case in many instances. If the challenger is running ads about why she is not a witch, you can assume that the normal trend will be reversed.
And if the challenger is discredited or cannot seal the deal, the late deciders will move away from them.
That’s why Brown is pushing the Cherokee Indian thing so hard.
The real question is why Romney and his surrogates spent so little time attempting to make him look like a plausible alternative. He doesn’t need to attack Obama. He needs to build himself up. But he isn’t even really trying to do that.
“That’s why Brown is pushing the Cherokee Indian thing so hard.”
And why not?
If the shoe were on the other foot we’d be killing them with it.
It speaks of character, we’d say.
And it’s much fairer than attacking Kennedy for Chappaquiddick.
Kennedy was young, drunk, terrified, and soaking wet, and did the wrong thing for one evening and then came clean.
She did the wrong thing with a cool head out of ambition and cynicism for a very long time.
(And Clinton should have resigned and let Gore finish his term.)
I don’t care about the GOP’s tactics; I’m merely noting their rationale. If Liz Warren seals the deal, she’ll win. Scott Brown needs a metric gigaton of cross-over voters. The GOP must raise character doubts to undermine her rectitude, so that is what they (and you) are attempting to do. To suggest that drunk driving off a bridge and fleeing the scene while your date drowns is somehow less of an error than noting your Native American heritage on forms, then you need to lay off the peyote.
Wow; you took the words out of my mouth. Sure, Kennedy was young but leaving the scene, when the woman was very likely still alive in the car, not calling the police, and then the first call you make the following morning is to your lawyer . . . tell me that doesn’t bespeak of one’s character. He was clearly a spoiled brat.
One can argue that he grew up over time, though the evidence for that is not clear. On a personal level, the man had flaws. We also know he was an amazing senator and a strong progressive voice through the DLC years. Like all of us, he had a shadow. Like almost all of us, he carried a mixed bag of qualities.
I do not understand your assertion that the Warren/Cherokee foolishness is “fairer than attacking Kennedy for Chappaquiddick”.
All Elizabeth Warren has ever done is repeated the family folklore passed down from her parents and grandparents. She’s never made any other claim. Why would she doubt her parents and grandparents?
She has neither sought nor been given any special treatment or material gain on the basis of Native American heritage. Period.
So in other words, there’s nothing there. I don’t understand why anybody would object unless for some personal or political purpose.
FWIW, I do have documented Native American heritage… father enrolled Rosebud Sioux, mother enrolled White Earth Chippewa (that’s what is on the old documents, we tend to say Lakota and Ojibwe these days). I’ve got no problem with Elizabeth Warren, I think her character is just fine.
-Jay-
The only thing I need to know is that the Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation is exactly the same amount of Cherokee as E. Warren: 1/32
Shit, if the chief is the same as you, who can say you’re not?
I have to agree with all of this. Clinton’s speech was one of the best I have ever heard, certainly in recent memory. Warren tried hard, but there’s just something missing in her delivery, I don’t feel what she is trying to convey. I can see where she might have problems reaching certain demographics – she comes across as a distant intellecual, albeit well-meaning. I only caught parts of Fluke’s speech, but the parts I heard were nothing special.
Warren not only lacks charisma, she comes off as a “No-No” person. A potential scolder if crossed. This party should not be betting on her, I think. Not as a politician, anyway. As a thinker? An organizer? A strong if not very likable boss? Probably. But as a pol? I don’t think so. Every picture I see of her makes me think of a cross maiden aunt about to scold her naughty, sloppy nephews.
Politics…even more so in the U.S. than ever before…is image. Hers doesn’t cut it.
Too bad. But there it is.
AG
Yes, unfortunately. Even though I agree with pretty much everything she said, she came across as hectoring and even angry at times. That’ll turn off some voters.
A clunky girl, eh?
Whatever terms fit your bill, I guess.
“Clunky?”
Maybe.
“Girl?”
I think not.
AG
I’m not much of a Clinton fan, but damn, that was one incredible speech. He did what the Dems have not quite managed in months of trying: Laying out clearly, rationally, and truthfully why America needs Obama again. He was brilliantly open about what a theatrical performance he was giving, and managed to merge that with heavy substance into one of the most effective political sells I’ve ever heard. I think he assured an Obama bounce that will last.
As to Warren, my take was the opposite of yours. She was certainly no Clinton, nor was she trying to be. I found her no-nonsense, low-rhetoric presentation refreshing and honestly thoughtful. To me, she came across as caring deeply, but realizing that fighting the bad stuff would come through policy, not just show biz. Just like Clinton’s, her speech reflected who she is, and that seemed welcome and refreshing amid all the marketing magic around her. Her straightforward get-it-done, not-PR persona might just do well against the showy, empty Cosmo centerfold. We’ll see.
I’ve got to say, Clinton’s speech was amazing. But all the speeches I heard were excellent, one after the other. I don’t think I saw the convention four years ago, but this was by far the best convention I’ve ever seen. It was full of substance, clear and informative, and all the speakers delivered a coherent message about why people should vote for Obama.
I don’t agree with hz about Elizabeth Warren’s speech. I thought it was excellent.
We definitely agree about this being the best convention we’ve ever seen, and I did catch the last one. Even the video segments, or at least the ones I’ve seen, were excellently produced: perfect length, great editing, informative and interesting but entertaining. It makes the Tampa convention look absolutely amateurish in comparison.
As for Warren’s speech, I agree, it was excellent. It’s the delivery I found a little lacking. With a little more attention to the audience reaction, it could have been probably twice as powerful. But overall, she did fine. If she was nervous at all, it didn’t show.
One always gets the impression that Bill really does feel your pain. I always wonder if that’s the result of being actually poor in his youngest days and attending a public High School instead of an exclusive Snoot School like the Obamas send their kids too.
Pols brag about log cabins but live in palaces as soon as they can, forever after.
And they don’t make their kids live over the garage with the chauffeur.
If I recall correctly, Chelsea Clinton attended the same school that Sasha and Malia Obama attend.
And both Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson had their share of tough times growing up.
My guess is one gets the impression Bill feels your pain because he’s a narcissistic, charismatic sociopath. Don’t get me wrong; he’s not without redeeming qualities. But I’d give you 100 Bill Clinton’s for one Barack Obama. Unlike Clinton and Romney, Barack has a soul.
I kind of agree with you, although — narcissistic, charismatic, yes — but not sociopathic. I’m not a huge admirer of Clinton. Nevertheless, the guy is brilliant, and that was one HELL of a speech. I think Bill’s just enjoying this to the hilt. So you ever remember him flat out kicking Republican ass? I more remember him kissing it. Finally, Obama’s given him the chance to do some serious ass-kicking.
And that may just be one of Obama’s many talents: he’s such a great leader, he gives you the chance to do your thing and still be part of the team. One of the interesting things about Clinton’s speech was that, while he talked about himself, everything he said was germane, I did not once get the feeling he was tripping over his ego.
I agree. Warren was fiery, funny, and honest. Despite being shamefully pushed around by bigfoot repubs and dems alike, she continues to speak truth to power and argue for fairness. The country needs her.
Just when the fatigue of all the lies was starting to seem overwhelming, he just cued them up one by one and decimated them like one of those old time southern defense attorneys.
best line: “arithmetic”
It’s too bad that politics boils down to simple, catchy one-liners spoken to incurious blithering idiots with double digit IQs and non-existent attention spans and memories, but at least Clinton and Obama know how to play the game. But in this speech I think Clinton did it better than Obama ever has – at least in terms of presenting the facts with a clarity that even old angry white douchebags will understand. Obama is supreme when it comes to preaching to the choir, but Clinton can spell it out in a way that has to be putting a kernel of doubt even in the minds of the Fox/Limbaugh audience.
Reminds me of a story I saw this morning.
I’d heard that PBHO tends to speak to about an 8th-grade level audience, but never seen candidates’ wives scored before. And Bill’s speech tonight had to be at least high-school level (I think I heard the phrase “unwarranted subsidies” at least once), despite his knack for breaking complicated matters down into simple language.
It’s too bad that politics boils down to simple, catchy one-liners spoken to incurious blithering idiots with double digit IQs and non-existent attention spans and memories
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the Undecided Voters.
I would say “because of” instead of “despite”. Simplifying the complex without making it overly simplistic is a rare skill.
The angry old white douche-bags you think he was talking to weren’t in the hall.
Or even watching the TV.
Their convention was last week.
And if you really want to get racial try to remember Obama will get nearly half the white vote but all of the black vote.
I know a number of swing voters who were watching. My best friend, who does not pay attention to politics, was watching. Don’t discount Clinton’s ability to persuade. That speech was huge. His presence on the campaign trail will be huge.
Sister Simone, Sandra Fluke, Elizabeth Warren, and Bill Clinton all kicked butt.
The CEOs of eBay (now that Meg’s doing in HP), CarMax, and Costco all testified that they had help building their businesses, as did the guy who started Port City Beer in Alexandria, VA.
The Latina equivalent of Oprah endorsed Obama.
And the governors of Delaware, Connecticut provided some relief boredom.
And former governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt told about what he did for education 20 years ago and how it helped draw jobs to NC. Hunt is a legendary four-term governor, whose priority was education.
“Relief boredom.” Love it.
You know what I’d like to have seen? although it would be wildly inappropriate at a political convention. Will Farrell in character as W Bush giving a speech. Even 5 minutes would just crush the house.
Over at Balloon Juice, Soonergrunt’s Post title: Whew. I need a cigarette and a shower now.
Yup, that about says it. Tonight was a bit like really great sex for a political junkie. Unless you’re a Republican, of course.
That’s not healthy, boys.
Really, it’s not.
I thought Clinton was pitch perfect. The best speech I ever heard him deliver, and while I read that he went off-script for a LONG time, I could have listened longer. One of the best moments was Ryan’s Medicare b.s. about Obama. Clinton recited what Ryan said, paused, modulated his voice, smiled, and said softly, “I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry,” his voice cracking a tad. Then he explained in clear terms what the Medicare cuts were. And laughed out loud that Ryan had the same number in his own budget.
Sandra Fluke was in the background and I didn’t get to hear her live, Elizabeth Warren is doomed, Clinton nuked the GOP.
Those are my impressions.
Fluke was good. Very good. A natural.
But…why do they say her name “Fluk?” Is that he way she prononces it? A nasty sound with all kinds of negative resonances.
AG
I think you answered your own question there.
Yeah, saying it Fluk is kind of a disaster. But I’m not sure Fluke would be that much better.
None, really.
I was watching TNT reruns of The Mentalist.
And yet you have enough opinions about it to spam up the thread…?
I think he’s just really concerned.
Digby has the whole thing up. Go see it. I was switching between the convention and the game, but when Clinton came on, he was not to be turned off. When the history of political speeches is written, this will be in it. Even beats Michelle and Strickland, and they were superb.
Fluke showed an interesting sparkle, and she’s just getting started. I personally love Warren, as someone who clearly understands the problem, and clearly has a plan to solve it, not flashy, but can get it done. A serious candidate for serious voters, but maybe that spells doom.
There’s a lot of depth to the Democratic bench, unlike what little the GOP had to show.
Interesting speculation I saw somewhere. Warren wins, Hilary retires, Kerry is appointed to State, Barney Frank is appointed to the Kerry seat.
How’s that for a Progressive Wet Dream ?
Yeah, I saw the same thing.
I’m far from Mass., but I don’t get it. The Ads against Scott Brown should be saying “vote for this guy and put Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate”. Warren should be running against Mitch, not Scott. She should be running against the policies Mitch supports – because if the GOP gets the senate majority that’s what voting for Brown will do for Massachusetts voters.
I’ve said the same thing for years about the campaigns for Senate in Maine. I don’t care that the GOP has allowed those two “ladies” to pile up a number of left-sided votes for symbolic purposes to prop up their moderate credentials for the folks back home. Starting with the first votes to form the Senate, on every critical vote they are with their party leaders.
Mass is a strange state, politically. The people here are INCREDIBLY insular both socially and politically. And they don’t realize it. Most people up here can’t even spell Kansas, much less know anything about the politics and slime coming from it.
I’d run against the R’s in the senate, too. But the pols up here don’t think that way. I don’t know why, its not like they wear kid gloves or something.
Agreed, as a 15-year MA resident. I just don’t see Warren as an appealing candidate to the Scott Brown-supporting moderates.
Perhaps Dem turnout, with the presidential election, will be sufficient for her to win, but I’m not terribly optimistic on her chances right now.
Nope, states can set their own rules for filling a Senate vacancy, and Massachusetts has the system described. Ironically, it was put in place when a Republican was governor, precisely to keep him from appointing another Republican to the seat for the entire unfilled term.
1. Really? That’s horrible strategy if so. I personally think that was one of the biggest factors that sank Howard Dean’s run in ‘004: he was still giving essentially the same stump speech in Iowa as the one he broke out with in January.
You can stick with a message, but you have to change the presentation every so often or you end up worse than you started off.
I understand Warren’s at a funding disadvantage, but she needs some fresh ads in a hurry if what you say is true.
My husband is not the political junkie that I am but we were both eager to see the big dog give his speech. We were not disappointed. We loved every minute of it. My husband was so enthused that he continued to watch the roll call of the states and he was impressed that I’d correctly predicted that Guam would point out that it’s where American’s day begins.
Killed it to the power of 10. Best part “ask me after the election”. The jaws just dropped.
All over the tubes the right squealed out “Monica!”.
One overlooked incident from earlier in the night. How AIPAC screwed with the Democratic Party Platform, causing the chair to railroad through amendments after the platform had been approved, ignoring a majority of Nos from delegates.
DNC Adds Jerusalem to Platform
This is not helpful at all. Bibi’s using his closeness to Romney to stampede Democrats into “supporting” Israel’s territorial ambitions.
And the corruption of Democratic process (yeah, yeah it’s an infomercial not a real convention) was bad optics.
Yes, and it happened in the afternoon — when only people like you and me were watching. That didn’t change a single vote. Clinton’s speech did.
It might not change a vote, but it will change the interpreted mandate if Democrats win. And it will be a major impediment to a realistic policy in dealing with Israeli-Palestinian issues. The optics for those outside the US paying attention is that Obama is not an honest broker in negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
The effect on the votes is not the only criteria conventions. The ability to claim something as a mandate goes to the ability of getting broad support for Democrats downticket (given the ideas that the platform mattered) and then citing the platform once in office as a mandate.
I wouldn’t take it that seriously, THD. It’s so totally pro forma, doesn’t mean anything really. I was mostly upset by the messy way it came about. My wife suggested it may even have a positive side. On the one hand it becomes evident that a lot of Americans are getting tired of this nonsense (the “bad cop”), on the other, Obama (who, so I heard, had wanted it in), gets to be the “good cop”, saving something that’s been a routine part of the Democratic platform for years anyway.
Kabuki theatre is entertaining when its done that artistically.
The statement “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” is as incendiary, and as pro-forma meaningless, as it used to be to insist that Taiwan “is” China (which was obligatory in the UN until 1971), or conversely (since then) that it is independent of China.
Yeah, that was sickening — a reminder amid all the positive excitement how craven and opportunistic the Dems can be. It was no-lose for them politically: most people aren’t going to pay attention, the Reps won’t attack them for it, and they get the odious AIPAC off their back. It won’t affect my vote because all the rest is so crucial, but it will make my heart a little heavier when I punch that ballot.
How was the convention tonight?
Pretty damned good.
Pretty damned effective, anyway.
I started a reply and it grew.
Read it here if you so desire.
Why…and How…The Democrats Are Going To Win and Win Big. Bet On It.
Bet on it.
AG