Fmr. Virginia Governor and Current Senate candidate, Mark Warner, on McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time:
"That's not a maverick; that's a sidekick."
Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland on what the surplus Bush inherited in 2001:
"George Bush took office on third base and stole second."This is the type of stuff that I recall from four years ago...at the GOP convention. One cut at Kerry and the Democrats after another. It is the type of playful mocking the Democrats were hesitant to use in the post-9-11 environment. Having said that, mocking is an equal opportunity employer; the Republicans will have their fair share next week. 2008 isn't 2004 and it is more fun that way.
I've been sidetracked all day, so I've missed the opportunity to ask, but what are everyone's thoughts thus far (pre-Clinton address).
Recent Posts:
An August Look at the Barr/Nader Effect in 2008
The Pre-Convention Swoon Revisited
The Electoral Map (8/24/08)
9 comments:
No way, No how, No McCain. :-)
You said "pre-Clinton address" but I'll say that I think she did an excellent job. I'll save any more comments on that part until a future post.
As for the other speeches - well, let me look at the schedule to get my memory going. Been a long day of convention watching ...
I'm a New York Democrat who has just about had it with David Paterson (and will vote for Bloomberg if he runs for governor - I almost always vote party lines but I'll make an extremely rare exception), but he's a very good speaker, and he did a great job today, except for one unfortunate slip.
Kucinich is nuts. I wasn't sure if he thought he was in a dance competition or something. Everything he said was true, but some things he said might rankle a few independents and I'm sure the right-wing pundits will have a little fun with him.
Casey did a good job with his brief mention of his differences with Obama on abortion and how he's able to look past that and support Obama.
The town halls irritate me. Something about the tone of the people responding to the questions, I don't know, but it was the same yesterday.
Senate women - I know Feinstein broke her ankle, but where was Patty Murray? Did they not want to have two senators from Washington? I suppose I should be asking this on DemConWatch.
It's nice to have some "ordinary people" speak, but the problem with that is that many of them, frankly, can't do it. They're not politicians, they're not used to making speeches.
Jim Whitaker, the Republican mayor of Fairbanks, didn't do as much for me as Jim Leach yesterday. I liked Leach's thoughtfulness (probably because I care little for speeches in general - odd for an Obama supporter), but others might not have found it that effective.
Warner's keynote was solid but unspectacular. I agree with Nate Silver giving it a B. It was a bit more policy oriented than the rest, which might be a nice contrast for some.
The kind of people who come to a website like this, like me, are used to analyzing numbers and words. But tonight what most struck me were the looks on the faces during Hillary's talk. In particular, both Bill and Michelle had very similar looks of pride on their faces when Hillary was talking about Barack. That was striking.
And then the looks on the faces of delegates as Hillary told them to think about whether they were in it just for her, or whether they were in it for the people she was fighting for...people were really thinking about it. They were dropping out of campaign mode, and thinking.
Speeches don't do that very often.
Mark Warner represents a place for Obama supporters to go if he loses to McCain and Hillary is blamed. I think she did everything that could be expected of her. It will be interesting to see how well Bill will do tonight. For two different readings on Monday night see Carville
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08
/26/james-carville-rips-first_n
_121323.html
and David Brooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26
/opinion/26brooks.html?
_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
In jest Rob, Warner, Schmwarner. I found Schweitzer quite interesting/entertaining last night. He'd do more to appeal to the right than would Warner. A great speaker. Nate mentioned the weight he had put on, but that along with his constant motion/nervous rocking made him, to me at least, come across as a kind of wonky Chris Farley-type. An interesting blend in the political arena.
I loved that Nate made the connection between Warner's body language and that of Nixon's. I watched it back this morning, and that seemed spot on. Not a good thing for Warner (though in Kerryian terms, Nixon did succeed before he failed -- twice over some might argue). But B sounds about right, if I'm grading it.
Kucinich was scheduled where he was for a reason. Now I hate I missed that one.
The Republican speakers thus far have been unremarkable at best. I liked the content of Leach's speech -- hey it bordered on a discussion of realignments in parts -- but the delivery was way off. I caught the unfiltered version of it on C-SPAN, but a colleague here at UGA said CNN spent the whole time he was speaking saying how horrible it was. The Fairbanks mayor was a little more animated, but was basically on the same level content-wise. The GOP will have the bigger guns out for crossover speakers. Zell Miller was ornery as ever in 2004 and Joe Lieberman represents a pretty big name this time around.
I may have a post up later concerning the Hillary speech -- after the electoral college update -- but feel free to have at here if you like.
Josh,
I concur, but then there was this Governor from Arkansas who performed abysmally at the 1988 convention and did reasonably well at the 1992 convention. Although he did not deliver it well, I think Warner had the message that Independents and many early Obama supporters want to hear.
I think the Democrats are making a mistake on the roll call. They should let it go ahead like roll calls in the past, maybe starting in the afternoon with nominating and seconding speeches. After the results are tabulated, then HRC could ask the convention to nominate BHO by acclimation.
Here are those links from Rob:
David Brooks
James Carville
Rob,
I agree with you on Clinton in 1988 and definitely don't think Warner is done politically as a result of last night. Like I said, it must have been hard to follow Obama's keynote from four years ago.
Bill Clinton is the bigger issue than the roll call (...if you believe the press). If the Obama campaign had known how well Clinton was going to do in advance then they could have held the roll call at the conclusion of her speech last night. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and their are obvious drawbacks to them positioning things that way.
Josh,
As you said you wished you hadn't missed Kucinich's speech, here it is on YouTube. I know I'm sending it at a time when that's the furthest thing from everyone's mind but I was out distributing literature for a local candidate and haven't been online much.
Kucinich's speech
Post a Comment