Megan McArdle writes that she was disappointed by Obama's speech, which "was basically standard Democratic Convention Boilerplate: nothing we haven't seen before from Obama, or for that matter, every Democratic presidential candidate in living memory."
It's understandable that Obama's partisan (or is it post-postpartisan?) speech was a letdown for some, but it makes sense for Obama to try to become a generic Democrat. In this political climate almost any "Democratic presidential candidate in living memory" would be running away with this election. Obama's not--because of (1) disaffected Hillary voters and (2) his extremist record, succinctly noted by Ramesh Ponnuru:
If all you knew of Obama was what he presented to you in his speech, you would think of him as a typical Democratic politician improved by the addition of a bit more thoughtfulness and idealism than the average representative of the class. You would be amazed to learn of his extremely close relationship to a radical anti-American preacher; or that he has followed a no-enemies-to-the-left approach to politics that put him in the company of an unrepentant terrorist. You would not suspect that he favors taxpayer-funded abortion or drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants. You would not realize that he has crossed party lines far less often than McCain. You would not imagine that he had ever voted against funding for troops in war zones.
If Obama's far-left voting record and radical friends rule out a landslide, then focusing on turning out the base by running as a partisan Democrat to shore up the Hillary vote seems like a safe--perhaps the only--path to 269 electoral votes.
