Can't get enough of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin? The Anchorage Daily News has kindly posted a photo gallery here.

Earlier today, we took a look at Alan Colmes’ comments about Sarah Palin’s most recent pregnancy. Colmes wrote:

Rogers Cadenhead gives the timeline associated with the birth of her newest child. She had a speech in Dallas and, even after the water broke, continued with her activities, and then boarded a plane for home. She did consult by phone with her doctor. Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

While Colmes’s sudden concern for fetuses so long as they reside inside the body of conservative politicians is touching, some people inferred from this idiotic post that Colmes was suggesting that Palin’s putative poor judgment caused her baby to be born with Down syndrome. After sending the initial post down the memory hole, Colmes addressed this concern:

“I in no way mean to suggest that her child’s Down Syndrome was in any way related to decisions she made. In fact I never mentioned Down Syndrome in the post. However, I apologize that my post was not more clear on that point. That is my fault, and I’ll take responsibility for not being more clear on that point. “

Why anyone would infer bad faith when someone is belittling a politician’s handling of her own pregnancy is beyond me. Nevertheless, good of Alan to sort of man up.

At the other end of the crackpot conspiracy theory spectrum, we have Andrew Sullivan who seemingly blogs for the sole purpose of posing the existential question, “How many times can one man kill his own reputation?” Sullivan promulgates a theory that categorically rejects the notion that Palin irresponsibly handled her pregnancy. Why? Because Palin was never pregnant in the first place! Instead, she pretended to be pregnant and give birth (while a sitting governor!) in order to cover for her daughter who was in fact having the baby out of wedlock.

In his original post on the matter, Andrew stated that the rumor is “buzzing across the Internets” before calling them “unfounded and unseemly.” A full 41 minutes later, however, he characteristically disagreed with himself, inveighing, “This baby was a centerpiece of the public case for Palin made by the Republicans. They made it an issue - and therefore it is legitimate to ask questions about it.”

Speaking of the unseemly, contra Andrew, the story has not been buzzing across the Internets. Prior to Andrew propagating the rumors, they remained confined to the fever swamps where even on the Huffington Post the commentary was generally of the “Good god this is stupid” variety. At the Daily Kos, many of the commenters to the rumor-mongering diary lamented its idiocy and ugliness.

Since I know you’re dying to know the kind of persuasive logic that the Kos diarist displayed that piqued Andrew Sullivan’s interest, I offer the following excerpt:

“The final point of interest is that Trig Palin has been diagnosed with Down's (sic) syndrome (aka trisomy 21). This is an interesting point, as chances of having offspring with Down's (sic) Syndrome (sic) increases (sic) from under 1% to 3% after a mother reaches the age of 40. However, 80% of the cases of Down's (sic) Syndrome (sic) are in mother's (sic) under the age of 35 , through sheer quantities of births in this age group.”

Someone better tell Alan Colmes – the Kos Kid has him dead to rights.

Both Andrew Sullivan and Alan Colmes did the exact same thing – they disseminated attacks so vile and idiotic they would never dare put their own names behind them. They used their platforms, platforms that lunatics who come up with such crackpottery typically lack, to get the attacks much more attention than they originally would have received.

Colmes and Sullivan did the exact same thing in another regard. Both men, in eagerly publicizing crackpot theories, showed the boundless desperation and ugliness that Sarah Palin will face. If ever there were examples of “kitchen sink” political tactics, the blogging efforts today of Sullivan and Colmes provide them.

And both men have provided early returns on our question, “How low will the left go?”

(1) Gets Bush out of St. Paul, where he would have given a speech that the media and the Democrats would have pounced on, and puts him in the eye of the storm, doing the nation’s business, where he will be welcomed and greeted by friendly Republican governors.

(2) Puts the spotlight on those friendly Republican governors--Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist, and most of all, Bobby Jindal, (the male Sarah Palin)--who will do their jobs competently, in contrast with the mess made three years ago by the Democratic governor of Louisiana, whose performance even at the time was compared unfavorably to that of Barbour and Jeb Bush, then Florida’s governor.

(3) Puts the spotlight especially upon Jindal, a huge favorite of and rising star in the Republican party, who has the chance now to prove himself under pressure on a truly huge stage.

(4) Cuts short the hours and hours of media chatter, which would doubtless have focused on a) how tarnished the ‘Republican brand’ is in this season; b) the immensely high bar set by Barack Obama, and c) the immensely strong current the party is swimming against.

(5) Cuts short the exposure given the ‘Republican brand’ by cutting short coverage of more conventional (and boring) Republican figures and boilerplate, and focusing largely on the three starring figures--Jindal, McCain, and Sarah Palin (the pale Bobby Jindal)--who are diverse, unorthodox, have cross-over potential, and are decidedly outside of the box.

(6) Eliminates the danger of a direct comparison between the oratorical talents of McCain and Obama, as a conventional acceptance speech will be no longer possible, and anything McCain says in this context will have its own innate power.

(7) Takes McCain from a setting in which he’s uncomfortable (partisan leader of a partisan army) to one--national leader rallying a country in crisis--which suits him much better.

(8) Takes the convention from the traditional role of being an orgy of enemy-bashing to one of national service and charity.

(9) Gives fools like former DNC chairman Don Fowler a chance to wholly embarrass themselves by chortling over the inconveniences he imagined the storm would inflict on the Republican party. Watch what you wish for, my friend.

"As for the core principles," writes Andrew Ferguson of the 2008 GOP platform, "they’re the same ones you’ll remember from back when the Washington Republicans were violating them: less regulation, smaller government, an end to bureaucratic 'social engineering.'

"But the urge to stick their fingers into other people’s business is too much for even Republicans to resist, as the Bush years have shown. The draft platform condemns the current tax code for its endless complications, for example, and then proposes several ways to make it more complicated: a tax-free Lost Earnings Buffer Account and a Farm Savings Account, more elaborate tax-free accounts for education and medical expenses, credits for people who don’t get health insurance at work and enough alternative-fuel tax incentives to make T. Boone Pickens hop up and down in anticipation."

Read the whole thing, as they say.

The New York Times interviews Ian Bowman-Henderson, a 19-year-old Obamaphile who traveled from Cincinnati to Denver to participate in the Democratic convention. Bowman-Henderson was not entirely happy with what he saw. He and other young participants told the Times that "the convention process had left them marginalized as more centrist views on issues like offshore drilling took hold."

What on earth is he talking about? Does Obama's opposition to drilling not go far enough for Bowman-Henderson? Clearly Obama's position on drilling isn't "centrist." It isn't even "liberal." Plenty of liberals support drilling offshore - they would have to, as otherwise the polls showing more than two-thirds of the public support lifting the drilling ban would make no sense. Obama's position is just wrong: wrong on the merits and bad politics to boot.

Tom Wolfe, lamenting the current state of American fiction: "Writers come from master-of-fine-arts programs now. If you add up the college education of Steinbeck, Hemingway and Faulkner, you get to spring break of freshman year."

That's the question Robert Kagan asks in this new essay. Today's so-called "realists," Kagan argues, have inverted the lessons of their predecessors:

Leading realists today see the world not as Mr. Morgenthau did, as an anarchic system in which nations consistently pursue "interest defined as power," but as a world of converging interests, in which economics, not power, is the primary driving force. Thus Russia and China are not interested in expanding their power so much as in enhancing their economic well-being and security. If they use force against their neighbors, or engage in arms buildups, it is not because this is in the nature of great powers. It is because the United States or the West has provoked them. The natural state of the world is harmonious; only aggressive behavior by the United States disturbs the harmony. ...

The original realists had no patience for such Candide-like optimism about the inevitable upward progress of mankind. "Whoever thinks the future is going to be easier than the past is certainly mad," wrote Mr. Kennan in 1951, six years after the most destructive war in history, five years into the Cold War, and one year into what was widely seen at the time as disastrous and seemingly hopeless American intervention in Korea. Mr. Kennan's provocative assertion aimed to jolt Americans out of their yearning to believe that the future would be different. But now it is leading realists who embrace The End of History, with an unshakable faith in the inevitable convergence of humanity around shared values and common interests. These were exactly the hopes and dreams Mr. Morgenthau set out to vanquish decades ago.

Want an example? Read Richard Haas in Newsweek. Haas says punishing Russia for its invasion of an independent democracy would be counterproductive. No, Haas argues, we should actually reward Russia, by lowering "U.S. barriers to Russia's joining the World Trade Organization, not rais[ing] them." Because "[a]utocratic Russia is more likely to evolve into something more open if it is integrated into modern institutions than if it is left outside."

No it isn't. But such is today's "realism," which has eschewed considerations of power in favor of Rodney-King style, "Can't we all get along" claptrap. WWMD: What would Morgenthau do?

With all the excitement in Denver, Dayton, and, soon, the Twin Cities, you might have forgotten to take your dose of propaganda and revisionism for the week. I’m talking, of course, about the advertising supplement known as Russia: Beyond the Headlines in the Washington Post. (As it turns out, Putin is actually strengthening democracy in Russia!) This past week’s edition will be hard to top, with its lead story: “Georgian Bombs Rained on Us.”

“Many had already gone to bed when the Georgian shells came down on the city,” reported Alan Tsorion from Tskhinvali, “and all agreements and promises flew away with chunks of house foundation and twisted metal that used to be cars.” In a basement, Tsorion hears one woman ask, “How long will the bombing last? Let’s raise our hands and surrender before they kill us all. It looks like Russia has forgotten us.” But thankfully, Russia had not forgotten them and sent peacekeepers to liberate the victims of Georgian aggression, just as they courageously did in Hungary in 1956 and Prague in 1968.

According to the supplement, the Georgians have massacred 2,000 people in South Ossetia and more than 30,000 have fled the area. According to one resident, “In the morning of August 8, people started fleeing into the forest. About a thousand people dressed in NATO uniforms encircled half of the village and shot at those who were trying to flee. They had no mercy for old people or women.”

Apparently NATO has launched World War III. Next week in Russia: Beyond the Headlines: “Medvedev Airdrops Peacekeepers into America’s Heartland to Defend Against Wolverine Insurgents.”

From the Journal's piece on McCain's choice for vice president: "Striding out of [Palin's] downtown office with just a press aide and reporter in tow one June afternoon, a woman passing by pointed her finger at the distinctive-looking governor and said, 'Are you...? Oh my God! I like you, although I don't always agree with you.'"

"Distinctive-looking"? Why not "incredibly attractive"? That would be more accurate.

This is a great state. I've visited many times, and it has it all: a nice governor, nice people, great scenery, and the best radio station in the country. Which you can listen to online. In between convention coverage, of course.

Sure, the economy seems to be the central issue of the election. But there is no question that elections are also decided on how many of your supporters show up at the polls versus how many of your opponent's supporters do. And John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate means that more of his supporters are going to show up on November 4 than many originally thought. At least that's the feeling you get when you read stories like this, and hear Rush Limbaugh swoon like he's never swooned before.

Already lower than I imagined. HotAir reports that under the headline “Did Palin Take Proper Pre-Natal Care,” Alan Colmes has "rocketed into the gutter," writing:

Rogers Cadenhead gives the timeline associated with the birth of her newest child. She had a speech in Dallas and, even after the water broke, continued with her activities, and then boarded a plane for home. She did consult by phone with her doctor.

Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman’s water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That’s true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

The post has since disappeared, showing Colmes has at least a sense of self-survival if not a sense of decency. Bear this in mind next time you hear someone on the left claim they lose elections because they’re just too gosh darn nice.

On MSNBC's Hardball Friday, Pat Buchanan said that Sarah Palin and her husband "were at a fundraiser for me" back in 1996. Politico's Ben Smith noted that there is no record that Palin donated to Buchanan.

In a new post, Smith reports that, according to Buchanan's sister, Palin's only contact with Buchanan was at a fundraiser for an Alaskan politician--not for Buchanan:

I also spoke to Bay Buchanan, Pat's sister, this morning. She also said her only knowledge of Palin's contact with Buchanan was at the event in the '90s, which she described as a fundraiser for Alaska Republican Jerry Ward. Ward couldn't immediately be reached.

Was there something inconsistent in McCain's naming Governor Palin to his ticket after making much hay out of Barack Obama's not being ready to be president? I don't see it. Most of us McCain-Palin supporters think Senator Obama is ready and qualified to be vice-president, as is Governor Palin.

For a particularly fine discourse on the subject of experience, you should read the blog of the distinguished Harvard law professor (and occasional Weekly Standard contributor) Bill Stuntz linked to by John McCormack in the post below. Stuntz is not soft on Palin . . .

Clearly, her résumé is thin, maybe disqualifying. Perhaps the jobs she has held are too small to count in a national presidential campaign. But that isn't obvious, not yet anyway. What matters more, to me and I bet to more than a few others, is what she's done in those jobs.

But he is judicious and fair. Read the whole thing.

Also, for those not already readers of the site, check out the extensive discussions of the Palin choice at the Ashbrook Center's No Left Turns blog. Peter Augustine Lawler, also an occasional Weekly Standard contributor, reports from the annual American Political Science Association meeting in Boston:

It's impossible to overemphasize how happy the various kinds of social conservatives are here at the convention about the choice. I won't name names, but I'm including famous professors at leading institutions. Many of them have never really liked or trusted McCain. Strangely enough, they trust her. And they now trust him more.

More of his observations here.

Bill Stuntz has a thoughtful post on three different definitions of "experience" put in play by this year's election.

Quoth lefty blogger Publius after Obama's Invesco coronation:

I think McCain's decision to announce the VP pick tomorrow may be too clever by half. I mean, it will certainly draw some attention. But it's not like the press will completely ignore Obama's speech tomorrow or over the weekend. In this sense, announcing tomorrow will prevent McCain from getting maximum coverage of his VP selection.

Whoops!

You have to hand it to former DNC Chairman Don Fowler and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt: they sure know how to find a silver lining in a sad situation. While some consider it tragic that New Orleans may be about to be hit by a serious hurricane, they think it's something to laugh about. You see -- it's going to hit New Orleans right about the time the Republican convention gets underway!

Fowler was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1995-1997. He's the one on whom the camera is focused during this clip, laughing that New Orleans is going to get hit, and subsequently commenting that 'everything's cool.'

It's nice that Michael Moore isn't the only one that sees the upside of massive death and destruction.

Via RedState

Newt Gingrich e-mailed me the following, which he gave me permission to share with the wider world:

Authenticity is the one word threat to the Obama-Biden ticket.

There is something going on this weekend which traditional pundits, traditional consultants and traditional politicians are simply missing. All of the normal biography-oriented and issue-oriented analysis misses an emotional gestalt event comparable to when Ronald Reagan in 1980 crystalized his leadership in New Hampshire when he seized control of the GOP debate.

In one sudden moment Friday, John McCain fundamentally changed American politics in a manner that transcends issues and details.

The great threat to the Obama-Biden ticket can be captured in one word: authenticity.

There is something unaffected and "unsophisticated" (in the Columbia, Princeton, Harvard and University of Chicago meanings of the word) about Governor Palin. She really was point guard of a state championship basketball team. She really is a competent hunter. She is a hockey mom. She has one son about to go to Iraq.

She has 13 years in elected office

By any practical standard she has done far more in the real world with much more spontaneity and practicality than Barack Obama. And there is something deeply real and courageous about John McCain ignoring most of his advisers and all of the "insider wisdom" to reach out to a younger woman whose greatest characteristic is undaunted courage and a willingness to clean out the corruption in her own party.

This is a moment of stunning authenticity versus a sad collapse on the part of the Obama campaign from " change you can count on" to politics as usual, as marked by Obama's choice of a senator first elected when Palin was 9 years old.

As I wandered around from a family restaurant to the dry cleaners to a variety of other non-political places, people kept walking up to me and talking with energy and enthusiasm about their reaction to McCain’s choice of Governor Palin. As I sifted through their emotions and the intensity of their reaction it hit me that they were responding to "the real thing." The power of Palin is that she is so out of the establishment, and so out of the talking-heads, inside-the –Beltway-elite mindset, that the 80 per cent of Americans who believe we are on the wrong track suddenly can identify with someone who isn’t part of what got us on that track.

Palin will make mistakes. The news media and the Obama researchers will find things to attack. But if she stays relaxed and continues to be authentically who she has been for 44 years, the country is going to love her, and they are very rapidly going to get disgusted with the cynical negative nastiness of politics as usual.

Finally 2008 really has given us "change we can count on." Ironically, it is the McCain-Palin ticket.

From NRO, “The Hostess with the Moosest” by Mark Steyn

Steyn has at least momentarily emerged from his self-imposed semi-seclusion to remind us of how much we miss him:

First, Governor Palin is not merely, as Jay describes her, "all-American", but hyper-American. What other country in the developed world produces beauty queens who hunt caribou and serve up a terrific moose stew? As an immigrant, I'm not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that, but it was certainly high on my list of priorities. And for the gun-totin' Miss Wasilla then to go on to become Governor while having five kids makes it an even more uniquely American story. Next to her resume, a guy who's done nothing but serve in the phony-baloney job of "community organizer" and write multiple autobiographies looks like just another creepily self-absorbed lifelong member of the full-time political class that infests every advanced democracy…

Third, real people don't define "experience" as appearing on unwatched Sunday-morning talk shows every week for 35 years and having been around long enough to have got both the War on Terror and the Cold War wrong. (On the first point, at the Gun Owners of New Hampshire dinner in the 2000 campaign, I remember Orrin Hatch telling me sadly that he was stunned to discover how few Granite State voters knew who he was.) Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are more or less the same age, but Governor Palin has run a state and a town and a commercial fishing operation, whereas (to reprise a famous line on the Rev Jackson) Senator Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. She's done the stuff he's merely a poseur about. Post-partisan? She took on her own party's corrupt political culture directly while Obama was sucking up to Wright and Ayers and being just another get-along Chicago machine pol (see his campaign's thuggish attempt to throttle Stanley Kurtz and Milt Rosenberg on WGN the other night)…

Sixth (see Kathleen's link to Craig Ferguson below), I kinda like the whole naughty librarian vibe.

I left out numbers, two, four and five to make sure you follow the link. For goodness' sake, read the whole thing.

Christopher Hayes, an editor at The Nation and adoring fan of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claims that Sarah Palin was a Buchananite based on an AP report that Palin wore a Buchanan button to a Buchanan campaign event in 1999. This news led to Democratic congressman Robert Wexler's frothing-at-the-mouth attack on Palin's alleged anti-Israel beliefs evident in her alleged endorsement of Buchanan.

But, as Ben Smith reports, and both Wexler and Hayes fail to note, Palin "promptly responded to the story in a letter to the editor, saying that 'the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.'" In fact, Palin was involved in the campaign of Republican Steve Forbes in 2000.

Last night, Buchanan claimed that Palin was a "brigader" for him in 1996 and attended a fundraiser, but there's no evidence that she contributed to the campaign or was involved in it. And if Palin did attend a fundraiser of the former host of CNN's Crossfire, does that prove that she shared his views on Israel?

I normally don’t link to the work of my Weekly Standard colleagues in these Required Reading thingies, fearing that doing so could set off a frenzy of bribery and what-not as everyone lobbied for inclusion. But I have to make a one-time exception today because our coverage both here and in the nation’s leading dailies of the Sarah Palin selection has been so damn excellent:

1) From TWS, “Let Palin Be Palin" by William Kristol

“That's why Palin's spectacular performance in her introduction in Dayton was so important. Her remarks were cogent and compelling. Her presentation of herself was shrewd and savvy. I heard from many who watched Palin--many of them not predisposed to support her--about how moved they were by her remarks, her composure, and her story. She will have a chance to shine again Wednesday night at the Republican convention.”

In other words, lefties who think they’re going to get a deer-in-the-headlights are headed for serious disappointment.

2) From TWS, “Providential Palin” by Fred Barnes

“She brought down Alaska's governor, attorney general, and state Republican chairman (see my "Most Popular Governor," July 16, 2007). She killed the "bridge to nowhere." She used increased tax revenues from high oil prices to give Alaskans a rebate. She slashed government spending. She took on the biggest industry in Alaska, the oil companies, to work out an equitable deal on building a new gas pipeline. Obama can't match even one of these accomplishments.”

Yes, it’s true – Palin has only been governor of a small state for 20 months. But she has accomplished more in that time than Barack Obama has in 17 years of highly dignified dithering since leaving law school.

3) From TWS, “How Palin Got Picked” by Steve Hayes

Seriously – this is a remarkably reported piece. You are there as the Palin selection goes down. I’m not giving an excerpt because you really have to read the whole thing.

4) From the New York Times, “Two-Front Republicans” by Matt Continetti

The Palin selection says something profound about the reform of the Republican party. Take it from Continetti, the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject:

In recent years, the Alaska Republican Party has become a metaphor for the national Republican Party. There are probably more caribou than pigs in Alaska, but its Congressional delegation is nonetheless addicted to pork. Flush with oil money, Alaska’s Republicans have built a welfare state that Washington’s “big government conservatives” must surely envy. Corruption is rampant. The party is out of touch. Senator Ted Stevens, who championed the infamous $400 million bridge, faces prison. On Tuesday, Alaska Republicans nominated him for another term.

This is where Ms. Palin comes in. She campaigned for governor on an anti-corruption platform and has spent the past two years in combat with oil executives, lobbyists and politicians comfortable with the status quo. She helped prevent Senator Stevens’s bridge to nowhere. In Alaska, as in the country at large, Republicans have done everything they can to get thrown out of office. Ms. Palin was elected to save the party — and the state — from itself.

5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska” by Fred Barnes (yes, him again)
Lefties hoping that Palin turn out to be just another pretty face are headed for heartbreak:

“She has a record of integrity matched by few elected officials. Mrs. Palin resigned in protest in 2004 as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission over alleged ethical violations by the state Republican chairman, a commission member. Two years later, she upset Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski in the primary and defeated a Democrat in the general election.”

From Rasmussen Reports, “Palin Makes Good First Impression: Is Viewed More Favorably than Biden” by Scott Ramussen

From Rasmussen Reports, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll” by Scott Rasmussen

Now I know why the left was so angry when John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate (apart from the fact that they’re always angry except for when Barack Obama is soothing them with sweet clichés): They knew Sarah Palin would play with the American public in a way that even eminent statesman Joe Biden (chortle) would not.

How’d yesterday’s rollout go?

Sarah Palin has made a good first impression. Before being named as John McCain’s running mate, 67% of voters didn’t know enough about the Alaska governor to have an opinion. After her debut in Dayton and a rush of media coverage, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin while just 26% offer a less flattering assessment… By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters.

The Palin selection has also halted Team Barry’s post Denver bounce. Yesterday, Obama led by four. Same thing today.

I guess the Nervous Nellies in the conservative press can now stop muttering about 1988 and blindly speculating about how Palin will play with the great unwashed. We now have some empirical data. The polls are nice, but still nicer is the cool $4.49 million that the McCain campaign raised yesterday. Anyone with memories of 1988 will know Dan Quayle’s elevation didn’t trigger quite the same reaction.

Following the lead of hackish lefty bloggers, the Washington Post has published a shoddy report on an alleged scandal involving John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin.

In a nutshell, Palin faces allegations that she pressured a political appointee, public safety commissioner Walt Monegan, to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a messy divorce and child custody fight with Palin’s sister. Last month, Palin fired public safety commissioner Monegan. She has said the firing wasn’t about trooper Wooten, but Palin’s foes in the legislature appointed an investigator to determine if any wrongdoing occurred. A report is due in October.

The Wooten controversy began before Palin announced her candidacy for governor in 2005, when she and her family pushed for an investigation of Wooten’s criminal and abusive activities. The Post reports:

The domestic dispute entered the public arena when the governor's sister filed for divorce from Wooten on April 11, 2005.

The same day, the governor's father, Chuck Heath, contacted state police with several allegations against Wooten: using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson; shooting a moose without a permit; and drinking beer while driving a patrol car.

While the Post refers to mere "allegations" made by Palin's father, it fails to note the state troopers' investigation and 482-page report--released to the Anchorage Daily News--that found Wooten guilty of these charges:

Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

• He illegally shot a moose.

• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

The Post's failure to report that Wooten was found guilty naturally leads to its failure to report Wooten's scandalously light punishment for issuing a death threat and Tasering a 10 year-old:

"The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession," Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days. After the union protested it, the suspension was reduced to five days(emphasis mine).

The second half of the Post article is comprised entirely of unchallenged assertions made by Monegan and the troopers' union boss John Cyr--who includes this blatant lie among his tendentious statements:

Cyr said Wooten has "a spotless record" and no allegations in his file other than those filed by the governor's family.

According to the Anchorage Daily News that's not true:

Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force

So where do things currently stand with the controversy? The Anchorage Daily News reported on August 14 that although Palin “has previously said her administration didn't exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten,” the governor said she had recently become aware that her staffers had made two dozen calls to the public safety department about Wooten. “Many of these inquiries were completely appropriate. However, the serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction,” Palin said.

In one of the supposedly inappropriate phone calls, a Palin staffer--who has since been placed on leave--tells a staffer at the public safety department that “‘Todd and Sarah [Palin] are scratching their heads, 'Why on earth hasn't this, why is this guy still representing the department?'”

So: Is there really much of a scandal here? In my view, the only way this story can hurt Palin is if the media continue to ignore or downplay exactly what Wooten did. Any normal American would want to knock Wooten’s teeth in for Tasering a 10 year-old and threatening to kill Palin’s father. If anything, this “scandal” reinforces Palin’s record of being a reformer who stands up to thugs and bureaucrats content with the status quo.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is skipping the Republican National Convention this week in Minnesota to manage an ongoing budget dispute in Sacramento. Republican officials say Fred Thompson will take his place in the prime-time lineup Monday night and onetime presidential candidate will have nearly three times longer to speak than he was originally given for his speech on Tuesday.

Schwarzenegger hinted that he might skip the convention at a press conference in Los Angeles on Wednesday. "The work for the people of California, and to solve this budget problem, is the most important thing right now for me," he said.

Thompson, who is launching a new political action committee -- FredPAC -- in conjunction with the start of the convention, will now have twenty minutes to speak rather than seven. Other speakers Monday night include Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

Courtesy of Ace, two pictures worth the proverbial 2,000 words:

With Gov. Palin's five chlidren and McCain's seven, the presumptive GOP nominees have more offspring than any major-party ticket since 1920. In that year, Democratic Ohio Gov. James M. Cox (six children) and Franklin D. Roosevelt (also six children) lost to Harding and Coolidge. Interestingly, both the McCain/Palin and Cox/Roosevelt campaigns were launched from Dayton, Ohio.

Two quotes today.

From Thursday: "So we zoomed off after [a pedi-cabby named] Colette, who stopped several blocks away at a hotel, and out came Daryl Hannah. Probably you want to know what she is really like, as a person and a human being. I would say, based on gawking at her from a distance of 2 feet, that she is quite attractive, although of course not in the same league as my wife."

And today: "I've been to every convention since 1984, and I have to say that Democratic delegates always manage to look good when they engage in group "rock-n-roll"-style dancing, in stark contrast to Republican delegates, who always look like they're subjects in some kind of cruel mass experiment involving random-firing high-voltage buttock probes."

It's a hit: "Over 38 million Americans watched TV coverage of Barack Obama accepting his party's nomination for president on Thursday, far more than tuned in for the acceptance speeches of past Democratic contenders."

How many of these viewers were watching Obama for the first time? Did they like what they saw? How many were voters who have already made up their minds?

The answers to such questions are not clear. But it is likely that the Obama bounce is about to bounce a little higher.

Fantastic tick-tock from ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg

It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.

The next day, McCain studied the three men at the top of his shortlist: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. All had different strengths and negatives, but McCain was not satisfied. None of them had what McCain believed he needed to do -- and would have done -- with Lieberman.

McCain wanted to shake up the ticket.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was in the mix as an unconventional choice for months, but she had not been considered a front-runner. So, over the next few days, with McCain continuing to believe he needed someone who had more of a maverick streak than his other choices, lawyers reviewed her vetting information. They kept their activities from even some in McCain's most senior inner circle....

The campaign secretly flew Palin into Dayton last night. She and McCain met privately for a couple of hours. McCain concluded she would "shake up the system" and was "a maverick," qualities he believed Lieberman would have brought to the ticket. But she also would appeal to conservatives -- which Lieberman most certainly would not have done.

After their meeting, McCain concluded he was comfortable with his choice. He notified Pawlenty this morning that he was going in a different direction.

St. Paul
Republicans gathering early here in St. Paul are ecstatic about the Palin pick and-–not surprisingly--less than blown away by the Obama speech in Denver last night. I talked to some experienced Republican operatives this morning and they shared thoughts on both topics.

First, on Obama last night, a senior GOP communications consultant said this:

“One of the first rules of communication is ‘Don’t reinforce a negative stereotype.’ For Obama, that stereotype is ‘I’m more of a rock star and a celebrity than a person with the experience necessary to be commander-in-chief.’ I would have given a more sober, serious speech in a less-hyped setting. I think it was over the top from a visual perspective, and I’m not sure your average guy in Ohio shares the enthusiasm that was in the stadium.”

A GOP operative working at the convention in St. Paul said this: “I guess we now know the kind of ‘change’ he has in mind. He wants to bring about a bunch of liberal, redistributive policies. I don’t think that’s the type of change people want.”

Finally, an experienced GOP campaign veteran I talked to worried about younger voter reaction to the speech. “I can see how young people might buy into this whole thing. The hype, the music, the enthusiasm--it’s like nothing they’ve every seen in politics before. The problem is it’s the same old product with just a new salesman. I worry that young voters don’t get that.”

Participants here are still digesting the Palin pick, but early reactions are glowing. Here’s a sampling of immediate reactions from folks here in the Xcel Center:

“It’s a great pick. The team will have broad generational appeal.”

“I’m glad it’s not a Washington insider.”

“I can’t wait to see her debate Joe Biden.”

The selection should also sit well with delegates who worried Senator McCain might pick a pro-choice candidate or even a Democrat. Bottom line: The Palin pick is generating a lot of initial enthusiasm in the convention hall right now--passion the McCain camp hopes will build into next week.

1. Steps on the story of Obama’s speech (and convention), and possibly the bounce coming from them, and wipes them off the news cycle. The Sunday news shows will be all-Palin, all of the time.

2. Sends Republicans into their convention on a huge head of steam.

3. Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person.

4. Revs up the base AND excites independents, which no one else in the party, or perhaps in the world, could have accomplished.

5. Puts youth, change, and history on both of the tickets.

6. May detach some young people, especially women.

7. May attach some women pissed off about Hillary.

8. As a pro-life super-achiever, puts feminists in a tizzy.

9. Revives some of the double-edged nature of the Democratic primary, which featured a black vs. a
female trail-blazer, and put both sides on notice on sensitivity issues. Democrats used to raising charges of racism against Obama’s critics may face charges of sexism and/or condescension if they try to diss her.

10. Steps on Obama’s claims to have been a reformer, as he reformed nothing (much less the corrupt mare’s nest of Chicago arrangements), while she was a dragon-slayer up in Alaska.

11. As a mother of five, one a Down Syndrome baby, helps her side take on the Democrats on abortion extremism and the Born Alive bill.

12. Reignites the deep and unhealed stresses inside the Democrats, some of whom will now wonder more loudly than ever why they didn't pick Hillary.

13. Counters Michelle in a way Cindy couldn’t.

14. Counter-intuitively, makes the issue of Obama’s light resume more potent than ever. Her lack of experience is no more than his is. And he’s--to use a term from Alaska, and the Iditarod--their lead dog.

Barack Obama's spokesman says that Alaska governor Sarah Palin is too inexperienced to be vice president:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same,” said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.

Jen Rubin calls the "town of 9,000" line "bittergate II"; Sonny Bunch writes:

“Please,” John McCain is praying right now AS I TYPE, “Let a Democrat say that an executive with 2 years of experience and no foreign policy expertise isn’t ready for the presidency. Oh pretty please. Because you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to take that soundbite, put it in an ad, slap Obama’s mug up there, and run it over and over and over again.”

Because Palin has exactly as much experience as Obama–arguably more, since she’s an executive. The only difference is that she isn’t running for president.

And here's the official McCain campaign response:

“It is pretty audacious for the Obama campaign to say that Governor Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match. Governor Palin has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and actually achieving results -- whether it’s taking on corruption, passing ethics reform or stopping wasteful spending and the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ Senator Obama has spent his time in office running for President.” --Jill Hazelbaker, McCain Communications Director

TALKING POINTS: GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN

Governor Sarah Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has seen approval ratings of over 80 percent.

· She has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources.

· She leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.

· She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. And she put a stop to the bridge to nowhere that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

· In Alaska, she challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill.

· As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington.

In choosing Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain put Washington on notice that he is serious about shaking up the status quo.

What we're seeing is a maverick who has shaken up Washington picking as his teammate a maverick governor who has shaken up her own state.

What it's going to take to change Washington is a team of Mavericks who have a record of accomplishment in shaking up the status quo.

"I am absolutely delighted by this selection. Once again, John McCain has shown that he is an independent thinker who paints in bold strokes. Sarah Palin is a conservative reformer with executive experience who will bring a breath of fresh air to Washington. She will be an ideal running mate for John McCain, and will make a major contribution to our country's future."

As just one example of how Obama used last night to shift the focus of his campaign, he altered one of the most well-known lines from his primary stump speech. During the last several months, one of Obama's signature lines, used in both speeches and ads, was:

Because we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril.

It's a line tailored for the liberal base, suggesting that the two most pressing issues are Iraq and global warming. Last night, he changed the line to:

We meet at one of those defining moments--a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

This is a pretty clear distillation of Obama's new focus.

Bill Kristol, about to take off on a flight, emails that Sarah Palin is McCain's VP pick.

I just got an email from Bill McAlister, a spokesman for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I had emailed him early this morning to ask about whether his boss was in Dayton and whether she had been vetted by the McCain campaign. (I had been told two weeks ago that she had not, which was a surprise given early reports that McCain's vice presidential vetter A.B. Culvahouse had been to Alaska to see her).

A Palin spokesman told ABC News that Palin remains in Alaska and intends to go to the Alaska State Fair.

McAllister's entire response: "Not sure what's up." That's not exactly a denial. McAllister is a well-respected newsman from Alaska, hired by Palin this June.

I talked to Palin for about twenty minutes two weeks ago, after John McCain, in response to a question, told me that he intended to talk to her about ANWR. We had a good chat, but the way she answered a couple of my questions is interesting in retrospect. I read her McCain's comments about the possibility that he is reexamining the ANWR issue and she responded as if he already had -- suggesting that maybe she had already talked to him about such issues.

SH: I asked if he’s reconsidering his position, which is something I’d heard from some of his advisers. And he said to me: “I continue to examine it.” Then he added that “Most Americans think that drilling offshore is appropriate but they’re somewhat more ambivalent about a national wildlife refuge. They’re more reluctant to do that.”

My follow up was to ask if he’d talked to you about it. And he said: “No, I haven’t I probably should. She’s a remarkable woman. I probably should talk to her. I will.”

Apparently he’s going to call you to get your thoughts on drilling there and I just thought I’d call to see if you could tell me what you’re going to tell him.

SP: “It’s very encouraging to know that he’s considering that, as well he should. And it bodes well for him as a pragmatic and wise and experienced statesman. What he’s doing here is he’s calling an audible when conditions on the field are changing. And that’s what you do if you want to win the game here. And the game is an energy crisis that Americans are in and it’s going to get worse before it gets better unless we start getting domestic production ramped up here – American sources of energy. Calling that audible is the right thing to do and we can win this if, obviously, if we start plugging in all of the different solutions that are out there. One of the pieces of a solution is allowing exploration on that little 2000 acre plot of land out of the 20 million acres up there in the coastal plain and what he’s obviously acknowledging, too, in his comments to you, is that most Americans do believe that American supplies of oil need to be tapped so we can quit relying on the foreign sources. And I know up here in Alaska, most every Alaskan believes that ANWR should be drilled and no one cares more about Alaska’s environment – our lands, our wildlife, our fresh air, our clean water – than Alaskans themselves. And we know that this can be allowed safely, cleanly, ethically – this type of exploration and development of an American supply of energy. So it’s very encouraging.

One additional thought: Palin is the one pick who would fit the descriptions most often bandied about over the past couple of days: "transformative" and "traditional" -- if you take traditional to mean someone not likely to upset conservatives.

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.

Our long national nightmare is over. Below, some brief thoughts on Day 4 of the DNC.

1) What a spectacle! It must be acknowledged that whoever thought of putting on this show at Invesco knew what they were doing. Oh, how we mocked the decision to move the coronation to a stadium and what fun we had making fun of the Greek columns. But who’s laughing now?

Throughout the 1980’s, the left whined about Michael Deaver’s and Ronald Reagan’s mastery of political stagecraft. They would insist it had nothing to with actually governing. Well, my friends, it is now our turn to whine. While I didn’t think the speech was particularly super, the night as a whole was super. Obama should receive some significant albeit ephemeral bounce-age as a result of the evening’s grandness which was exciting, and I’m sure to many inspirational.

2) Regarding the speech, I agree completely with Jonathan Last’s assessment that this was decidedly second rate Obama. He’s done much better in the past. What made the speech odd, especially by Obama standards, was its occasional stridency. His crude attacks on John McCain were unbecoming for the world’s foremost apostle of hope and change. And as Matthew Continetti noted, the speech was strangely defensive. The insistence that he, too, “puts country first” was particularly noteworthy in this regard.

Regardless of the speech’s mediocrity, last night was a spectacularly successful evening for the Democrats. The Obama movement picked up steam. Still, there’s this - the speech itself wasn’t effective enough to reach the swing voters who will decide the election. So while Obama will enjoy a bounce, the long term dynamics of the race remain unchanged. Obama had an opportunity to close the sale last night with at least some voters – he didn’t get the job done.

3) Now for the really important stuff – After Obama was done uplifting the crowd, the music kicked in. Oddly, it was the song “Only in America” by the country duo Brooks & Dunn. Brooks & Dunn have always been Republicans – they even played at the 2004 RNC if I recall correctly. Is it possible they changed their tune? Or, as seems more likely, did the DNC have to raid the music catalogue of one of the few Republican-supporting acts to find a thematically appropriate selection?

With all the Democrats in the music business, couldn’t they have found one song by a lefty that fit the moment? Perhaps they were worried that if they played John Mellencamp’s “Pink Houses” or Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA,” someone would actually listen to the lyrics.

David Brooks:

"[T]his election isn’t about the past or the present, or even the pluperfect conditional. It’s about the future, and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are."

There are half-a-dozen lines from the column that are just as good, and I'm only half-done. A classic.

Denver
Having followed Barack Obama around on the campaign trail quite a bit, I found tonight's big speech to be of the middle-rank, at least by his own standards. At his best, Obama is a riveting orator--his Iowa caucus victory speech was gob-smacking in the brilliance of both its rhetoric and delivery. When Obama does not have his fast-ball, his speeches tend to be unkindly exposed, like when you catch a magician in a trick. Tonight he was neither at his best nor his worst.

Two observations: First, the speech came insanely over-promised, both by the setting (not only a stadium, but in front of that grandiose set) and the puffery about him pouring his heart and soul into it with monkish fervor. The crowd loved it and him. Yet from where I was sitting in the 100 level, it seemed to me that the audience was more energetic and excited when he first stepped on stage than it was when he finished.

Partly, that may be because this wasn't the speech they expected. Many of the people in the crowd came with an eye toward witnessing history and Obama's speech was more political than historical. As such, he grounded it more in making his explicitly political case for the presidency than in the histrionics of the moment. There was only one passage which reached for the rhetorical heavens:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America--they have served the United States of America.

The crowd went nuts for this passage, but it was the only one to arouse serious passion. (There was an excited, but not rhapsodic, response to his allusion to Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which, interestingly enough, excluded mention of either the title of the speech or King's name. This isn't a criticism; I thought it was the most elegantly phrased passage of the entire convention.)

Second, Obama's speech represents a departure from the way he has constructed the argument for his candidacy. Up until this week--tonight, even--the Obama campaign rested on Hope / Change. He has now found a second act: economic populism. Following along, I saw the speech break into twelve fairly distinct sections. Eight of them were principally concerned with economic populism. The other four were about personal responsibility, foreign policy, patriotism, and bridge issues.

This new vector may prove very fruitful for Obama. It certainly seems like the smartest direction for his campaign.

But one issue was extremely notable in its absence: the surge. Obama went to some lengths to inoculate himself from attacks Republicans will make next week in terms of his judgment, his experience, his foreign policy toughness, his elitism, and his patriotism. He completely elided his miscalculation on the surge, suggesting that he has not yet figured out how to square this particular circle.

"You can't truly stand up for Georgia," Obama said tonight, "when you've strained our oldest alliances."

It's worth unpacking this statement. First, it's a clear indication that, despite what some bloggers say, Russia's invasion of Georgia truly is, yes, a world-historical event that has wormed its way into the presidential campaign and seriously troubles foreign-policy thinkers on both sides of the aisle.

Second, Obama makes no sense. The implication is twofold: that McCain, who speaks with Mikheil Saakashvili daily, has not "truly" stood "up for Georgia." Please. McCain has so stolidly backed our democratic ally during this crisis that some of Obama's cohorts accuse him of warmongering. How has Obama stood up for Georgia? He started by blaming it along with Russia for Putin's invasion. That didn't work. So he has since shifted direction - toward McCain.

The second implication is that McCain has "strained our oldest alliances." How has McCain done this? Obama does not say. Perhaps he means to suggest that McCain's backing of the Iraq war led to a semi-crack-up of the NATO and E.U. alliances. The crack-up happened, sure. But it is not hard to see that Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder had just as much a role in that crack-up as George W. Bush and John McCain. And now Chirac and Schroeder are gone. They have been replaced by pro-American leaders who have sought to rebuild their country's relationships with the United States. And McCain has given numerous speeches calling for the United States to do more to shed its unilateralist image.

Besides, contra Obama, you really could stand up for Georgia even if you have "strained our oldest alliances," which, as noted above, isn't the case anyway. One country can stand with another alone or as part of a united front. If the front the West presents to Russia today isn't exactly unified, it is due to reasons of internal European and German politics that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama can control. Obama should stay clear of this sort of attack on McCain. It's a dog that won't hunt.

When discussing foreign policy, Obama said this: "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country."

It's been more than 40 years since John F. Kennedy was president. Since then, three other Democrats have held the office: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Why didn't Obama mention them? Is this a tacit acknowledgment that the foreign policies of those presidents were, to put it charitably, a mixed bag?

Obama's economic message is clearly aimed at middle-class families that have seen prices rise and incomes stagnate. This is his clearest advantage. And he pressed it in his speech tonight here:

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know.
Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies, but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans?

And here: "I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families."

And here: "If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums."

And here: "But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth-century bureaucracy."

McCain can respond to these assertions by pointing out that Obama would raise the overall tax burden, support a renewal of the ban on offshore drilling, and has no record of spending cuts. That may not be enough, however. Because McCain's lack of a middle-class tax cut remains his key domestic policy liability.

Barack Obama's speech was a historic event. From where I was sitting, the stadium shook. But Obama was clearly playing defense. People have said he isn't specific enough, so he filled the speech with specifics. He found it necessary to respond to McCain's jokey (and effective) "celebrity" ad. He spent paragraphs proclaiming his patriotism - though McCain has never questioned it. He responded to John McCain's convention theme, "putting country first," by saying, "We all put our country first." Really? Everyone? To those who say the election is a referendum on his ability to lead in a dangerous world, Obama said, "This election has never been about me. It's been about you." No it hasn't. It really is all about him.

Yuval Levin highlights a few of Obama's evasions, issues he did not mention in the text. There is also this section:

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

In a gesture to compromise, Obama skirts taking a stand on critical divides. We all know where he stands on those issues, of course. He's a liberal. But he seeks to mask his liberalism in a gauze of sentiment and straw men. It worked at Invesco Field. It may no longer work by November 4.

Well, that was certainly a spectacular show. And the speech was beautifully delivered, wonderful to listen to--if you could refrain from thinking about what he was saying.

If you couldn't turn off your brain, alas, the speech was full of baloney, not that a lot of people don't like a good baloney sandwich.

I was reading the text as he delivered it, wondering if he would ad lib at all. He departed very little from the text. I was especially curious to see if he might change his rhetoric about the war on terror and promise, just this once, to "win" that war. He didn't. The only thing he promised to "win" was the election. As he has done all along, he said only that he would "finish the fight." This is impressive ideological discipline. Obama's most ardent followers don't want to see America, or America's allies "win" the war. They only want it to be over. He indulged them twice:

When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11 . . .

And then again:

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. [emphasis added]

People will criticize Obama's slander of John McCain, his claiming that McCain "won't even go to the cave where [Osama bin Laden] lives" when we all know that McCain would crawl on his belly into that cave under fire if you gave him the chance. But the real slander was Obama's associating himself with "the party of Roosevelt" and "the party of Kennedy." Those men would never have shied away from winning--not finishing, but winning--a fight against our mortal enemies.

In case there isn't enough talk about celebrity in America, here's some extra fare from England. And it¹s not about Obama, or Paris, or Britney. It's about Kate Moss.

Today the British Museum announced that 'Siren,' a nearly $2.8 million, 110-pound solid gold statue of Kate will grace the Greek sculpture collection. The sculptor, Mark Quinn, says it¹s the largest gold statue made since the time of ancient Egypt.

I wonder if the Obama artists are getting any ideas ....

If I were a man of means and could fund a 527, I would devote extraordinary resources to ensure that Al Gore could drone on endlessly in highly public settings about the climate crisis while supporting Democrats and positing that Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

Alas, I am not a man of means. Thus, sadly, Al Gore’s opportunities to remind America about everything wrong with the Democratic party will be limited to his just completed speech.

I would be remiss if I failed to note that to these eyes the night is unfolding extremely well for the Democrats, Al Gore’s dreary whining about the polar ice bears notwithstanding.

The set at Invesco which people have been talking about is even worse in person. Because while it's clearly striving for grandiosity, it doesn't achieve it. Instead of evoking the Acropolis or the Lincoln Memorial, it looks like a side entrance to Caesar's Palace in Vegas.

Of course, it may look different under the lights and/or on TV.

And lord I hate to say it, but watching the pre-ordination proceedings at Invesco, they are indeed impressive. Chris Wallace just said it feels like history in the making. I'm not sure I would go that far, but it does feel like something biggger than (not to mention different from) a pedestrian presidential campaign.

When you think about it, the situation's a little ironic. Being something more than a garden-variety presidential candidate has always been Obama's biggest strength. But appearing detached from the mudane and earthly concerns of we mere mortals has also become his greatest weakness. Tonight, the Obama campaign has selected a venue that emphasizes both the revolutionary nature of Obama 's quest as well as its grating grandiosity.

Which theme ultimately defines the evening will determine whether the event is a success or a campaign-defining bust.

Jonathan Beecher Field, an Obama supporter and English professor at Clemson, has written a devastating op-ed at InsideHigherEd.com on the subject of Joe Biden's plagiarism. The article concludes that Biden's plagiarism "suggests something of Biden’s character, indeed, in a realm more relevant to doing his job than was John Edwards’s philandering to his." While Biden's plagiarism of a speech by the British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock is fairly well-known, the professor notes that Biden's plagiarism in law school is more troubling. This E.J. Dionne article from 1987 examines the depth of Biden's dishonesty:

The file distributed by the Senator [in response to reports of his plagiarism] included a law school faculty report, dated Dec. 1, 1965, that concluded that Mr. Biden had ''used five pages from a published law review article without quotation or attribution'' and that he ought to be failed in the legal methods course for which he had submitted the 15-page paper.

The plagiarized article, ''Tortious Acts as a Basis for Jurisdiction in Products Liability Cases,'' was published in the Fordham Law Review of May 1965. Mr. Biden drew large chunks of heavy legal prose directly from it, including such sentences as: ''The trend of judicial opinion in various jurisdictions has been that the breach of an implied warranty of fitness is actionable without privity, because it is a tortious wrong upon which suit may be brought by a non-contracting party.''...

In his paper, Mr. Biden included a single footnote to the Fordham Law Review article.

In a letter defending himself, dated Nov. 30, 1965, Mr. Biden pleaded with the faculty not to dismiss him from the school.

''My intent was not to deceive anyone,'' Mr. Biden wrote. ''For if it were, I would not have been so blatant.''

At another point, the young Mr. Biden said that ''if I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?'''

Good question. How could a guy who told a constituent that he graduated in the top half of his law school class and had a "much higher IQ than you" intentionally do something so stupid?

Dionne's report provides some clues:

The faculty ruled that Mr. Biden would get an F in the course but would have the grade stricken when he retook it the next year. Mr. Biden eventually received a grade of 80 in the course, which, he joked today, prevented him from falling even further in his class rank. Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85.

The file also included Mr. Biden's transcript from his days as an undergraduate at the University of Delaware. In his first three semesters, his grades were C's or D's, with three exceptions: two A's in physical education courses, a B in a course on ''Great English Writers'' and an F in R.O.T.C. The grades improved somewhat later but were never exceptional.

A heartfelt congrats from McCain to Obama is scheduled to air during tonight's festivities:

Senator Charles Schumer of New York is the ur-Democrat, a loquacious and canny politician who, unlike many of his copartisans, is more than a little entertaining as he foils Republicans. He also has an ego the size of Alaska. This moment from Christopher Beam's excellent "Day in the Life of Lanny Davis" is priceless:

5:38 p.m.—Davis is still waiting for makeup when Sen. Chuck Schumer enters the room, entourage in tow. "Lanny!" he says. "What are you doing here?" Davis explains that they're going to be on O'Reilly together. Schumer's smile vanishes. He turns to Amy Sohnen, a heretofore cheery Fox News executive producer. "Absolutely not," Schumer says. Apparently there's been a mix-up. Schumer thought he was going to be appearing alone. Davis, sensing trouble, drifts over to the food table.
The senator storms out of the office to make a phone call. Outside in the hall, his spokesman is soft-yelling into his cell. It's unclear whether the objection is to Davis himself or appearing on-screen with someone of lesser stature than Schumer.
After a few minutes, Sohnen approaches Lanny. There's been a terrible mistake, she explains, and they can't have him on the show. "That's not an option," Davis says. He was the original guest, and he gave his permission for Schumer to join him. "I'm sorry. Unless Roger Ailes calls me personally, I'm doing the show."
6 p.m.—Set of The O'Reilly Factor. Schumer and Davis sit down with Bill O'Reilly at a table overlooking the convention floor. Apparently O'Reilly has been briefed on Schumer's tiff. "No one tells me what to do either, and I'm the star," O'Reilly says. "Now, siddown." They agree Schumer will speak first, and that he and Davis won't appear on-screen together.

Don't sweat the small stuff? Not if you're Chuck Schumer. Here's a profile of the man from The Weekly Standard last year.

Minneapolis
I’m sitting in the Xcel Energy Center watching the birth of a convention hall--a cacophony of hammers, drills and “testing one, two, three” suggests the Republican Convention is just days away.

The media presence in these halls is always impressive. Modern conventions are, after all, largely media events. AP, BBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and Fox sky suites stand at various stages of completion--with technicians setting up cameras, cables, and video monitors. And right above the Thompson-Reuters and AP suites, the Al Jazeera Channel has a box too. It’s still dark--maybe they had a late night of pre-convention festivities?

All this led me to wonder who is watching the festivities. Nielsen’s new website contains some interesting data on viewership. No results are available yet on last night, but a couple highlights from days 1 and 2:

Almost 26 million people watched the second night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention--a 16% increase from 22.3 million viewers on the opening night of the convention.

Tuesday night’s speeches, which featured Senator Hillary Clinton’s much anticipated keynote address, continued to draw a large proportion of African Americans (12.7% of all African American viewers tuned in).

Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com highlights how African American watching of this week’s Democratic convention compares to the rest of the population:

African Americans continue to watch the convention in a higher proportion than the rest of the population (the African American rating, or percentage of the African American population watching, was 12.7 vs. a 9.0 for the population as a whole).

According to historical data on the Nielsen site, over a million more households watched the Republican Convention than the Democratic Convention in 2004. Democrats drew more viewers, however, in 2000.

Tonight’s Obama-Palooza at Invesco Field should smash all the old records--if for no other reason just to see if the Democratic nominee wears a toga to match the Greek columns.

HT: Pollster.com

From the Politico, “MSNBC Prez Defends Convention Team” by Michael Calderone

Things are getting ugly at MSNBC:

In addition to Olbermann, MSNBC personalities Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and David Shuster were involved in Denver controversies.

On Monday evening, Olbermann interrupted Scarborough while he was talking about McCain being competitive in the polls. “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” Olbermann remarked.

On “Morning Joe” the following day, a clearly agitated Scarborough went off on Shuster during a discussion of Iraq, which quickly devolved over several cringe-worthy minutes into personal attacks, such as Scarborough telling the world how his colleague missed the show three times by oversleeping. "Are you Rip Van Shuster?” Scarborough asked. “Have you been sleeping for the past couple of months?”

But Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, became enraged when Shuster made a reference to “your party.” Asked by Scarborough what his party was, Shuster said he was an “independent.”

"I feel so comforted by the fact that you're an independent,” Scarborough said, in a mocking tone. “I bet everybody at MSNBC has independent on their voting cards. Oh, we're down the middle now.” (Shuster left the set, but returned later to hug it out, "Entourage"-style.)

This reminds me of a time when I was doing a story for this magazine on Larry Summers’ troubled tenure at Harvard and the left-wing professors who were trying to run him out of the Yard. After the story ran, I spoke with one of the liberal professors that I had interviewed and he expressed surprise that my story had a bias and wasn’t strictly neutral. I expressed surprise over his surprise. I make no bones about my biases, and any sentient reader of this magazine quickly notices a decided rightward tilt.

So I’d be among the last to complain about another news service showing bias. Indeed, I appreciate MSNBC’s willingness to wear its biases on its virtual sleeve, and find that dynamic far preferable to the shopworn biases that creep into someone like Wolf Blitzer’s coverage all while he maintains a phony pose of neutrality.

MSNBC remains an interesting case for other reasons. Until recently, it and its mother ship were respected news agencies. Now that they’re morphing into purveyors of opinion and propaganda, the respect is vanishing.

Just as I read the left wing blogs, I watch MSNBC. Keith Olbermann is the main man there, and right wingers who deny his talent sound as out of touch as left wingers who deny Rush Limbaugh’s talent. What’s more, Olbermann is hardly the only partisan on cable news. Sean Hannity brings a distinct viewpoint to his show, as does Glenn Beck. Not that anyone watches Beck, but it’s still worth noting.

But there’s something different about the Olbermann show. Unlike Hannity and Bill O’Reilly who will have guests from all over the political spectrum, Olbermann’s Countdown is an elaborately constructed echo-chamber. Virtually every guest agrees with the host’s sentiments. Rachel Maddow, one of Olbermann’s most frequent guests who is about to get her own MSNBC vehicle, is an engaging television presence but she and Olbermann concur on all matters. So Olbermann “interviewing” Maddow is a pointless exercise. A monologue (or “special comment”) would do just as well.

Olbermann’s show has become the television equivalent of a left wing blog where group-think dominates and dissenting views are most assuredly not welcome. It’s ironic - when people who don’t watch Fox criticize Fox, they have an idea in their head of something that looks a lot like Keith Olbermann’s show. But on Fox, unlike the changing MSNBC, all views are welcome.

If MSNBC continues in its current direction, it will lose all respect as a news organization. But that may be good business. Offering opinions is cheaper and more popular than gathering news. The issue going forward will be how long it takes before the act grows stale. Speaking just for myself, seeing people agree with each other for hours on end doesn’t make for particularly compelling television. Right now, Olbermann occupies a sweet spot where he reflects the distilled anger of the American left. But that anger will lessen with George Bush’s departure and perhaps vanish if Barack Obama wins.

It’s also tough to figure why Olbermann is unwilling to get it on with people with whom he has ideological differences. He’s a glib guy, sharp and quick on his feet. And I’m certain there are a lot of conservatives out there who wouldn’t mind appearing on his show to express the other side of things.

"This Greek Temple thing is going to cling to Obama like some Kerry spandex."

George F. Will: "[D]ecades hence, historians will write about today's response to Russia by the West, perhaps in obituaries for the idea of 'the West.' If Obama does not speak to this crisis Thursday night, that will speak volumes."

He's right, of course. As you listen to the assembled Democrats prattle on from the dais, you are struck at how few of them mention the crisis in Georgia and the challenge Russian autocracy and aggression poses to the international order. When they do mention it, their claims are often absurd. John Kerry actually had the audacity to say Obama's response to the Russian invasion was the exemplar of a "statesman of the twenty-first century." Does that mean twenty-first century statesmen will apportion blame equally between despots and democrats?

The most important line of the convention proceedings last night was Bill Clinton's statement to the American people that Barack Obama is ready to swear the oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States of America. That meant something, coming from a former commander-in-chief who has expressed doubts about Obama's readiness in the past. Obama's challenge tonight is to persuade the public that Clinton is right.

On MSNBC, Robert Gibbs held up a picture of George W. Bush giving his 2004 convention speech with white columns in the backdrop to show that their Greek temple setting for Obama's speech is perfectly appropriate:

Juan Williams's op-ed commentary throughout the campaign has been superb - passionate, informative, and incisive. His latest is not to be missed.

Thomas B. Edsall reports:

The Obama campaign has accelerated a transformation already underway in the Democratic electorate. 2008 appears likely to mark the death knell for what remained of the New Deal coalition - the coalition that was crucial to the early elections of such politicians as Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy.

In its place is a Democratic alliance that initially emerged during George McGovern's 1972 campaign, became competitive in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, and that now appears to be solidifying as the core of the party: a combination of "haves" -- socially liberal, well-educated whites, especially the young, and "have-nots" -- black and Hispanic minority voters.

The shattered New Deal coalition offers an opportunity for John McCain. Pew pollster Andrew Kohut points out that, compared with John Kerry in 2004, Obama is under-performing among the much discussed "working-class whites," while he is over-performing among young people, liberal professionals, and African Americans.

The question is, How many members of these groups can Obama bring to the polls on November 4? Edsall quotes polling analyst Nate Silver: "'For each 10 percent increase in African-American turnout, Obama gains approximately 13 electoral votes, and 1 percent in his popular vote margin against John McCain. Even a 10 percent increase is enough to take him from a slight underdog against McCain to a slight favorite, while at higher levels of turnout improvement, Obama becomes the strong favorite.'"

Remember hearing about all the new voters Obama would bring to the polls in places like Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania? Didn't happen. There are a lot of young people, liberal professionals, and African Americans in California. Obama lost there. This is not to say that Obama will lose California in the fall, of course. But the Obama campaign's promises of a wave of new voters that will put their candidate over the top have not been true in the past. Which is reason to be skeptical that they will prove true in the future.

Tony Campolo is a rare bird indeed--an evangelical Protestant who’s also a Democrat and pro-life. He was on the platform committee and worked on the plank dealing with abortion. At yesterday’s meeting of pro-life Democrats, Campolo was introduced as the committee member responsible for the new language endorsing the goal of “reducing abortion.” He said that he’d first proposed the term “abortion reduction,” but there was objection from the pro-abortion rights types who dominated the committee. So he countered with “reducing abortion.” Campolo said he didn’t know why abortion reduction was a problem for the pro-choicers since “reducing abortion” means the same thing. Campolo also talked about what he failed to get in the abortion plank, among other things a statement that abortion involves serious moral issues. He told the committee that both Obama and Clinton make this point when discussing abortion (Obama as recently as during his Saddleback Church joint appearance with McCain; listen closely tonight). After the meeting I caught up with Campolo and asked him why he thought the committee balked at including a statement already approved, you could say, by Obama and Clinton. His answer: The abortion rights advocates “thought that what we were trying to do was to make a negative judgment or condemnation of a woman’s decision to have an abortion.”

It's not a pretty picture. Michael Turton, who writes from Taichung, has the goods.

Republican strategist Mike Murphy on the visual language of tonight's Obama speech at Invesco field:

"I think the normally shrewd Obama campaign has a blind spot about tomorrows big speech at Invesco field. The Pepsi center is the visual “home” of this convention. Having Obama do his big finish in another venue screws up the visual vernacular of the convention. Turn off the sound, and watch the tape. In the end it will look like two different conventions; one visually dominated by Clintons, another by Obama. That is a message of separation, not unity. Also, ask any TV director: staging a TV mega-event outdoors is very tricky. Lots of things are hard to control. The whole Obama speaks to massive crowd thing is impressive, but done. We’ve seen it before. Finally, the Mount Olympus set looks problematical at best. An Obama staffer assured me it’ll look better tomorrow. For their sake, it better. They should have changed this up yesterday and moved to a more intimate man in the arena set up back in the Pepsi center. Obama is the nominee, he should own this house."

From the Wall Street Journal, “Economy Grew 3.3% in 2nd Quarter, Much Higher Than Initial Reading” by Jeff Bater and Brian Blackstone

Okay, lets’ get a couple of things straight. There have been two whopping dislocations in the economy over the past year or so. The decline in home values and the rise in fuel prices have hit the average American hard, and there’s nothing that the average American can do to make those things unhit them. They can’t just dump their houses, and they can’t ditch their cars. Politicians ignore these developments at their peril.

But every four years, the Democrats gather for their national convention and paint a portrait of an America right out of Dickens. If John Edwards had been allowed in Denver, he probably would have spoken about the woeful plight of pre-teen chimney sweeps. In other words, as the new economic data show, things are a bit more nuanced than the Democrats seem able to process.

One thing about our presidential elections in the mass information age – the most optimistic candidate always wins. Seriously. Take it all the way back to Kennedy if you care to. And that’s historically been one of the Democrats’ biggest shortcomings – they’re perennially down on America. Bill Clinton overcame this by being the Man from Hope. Barack Obama, back when his shtick was still fresh, also had the ability to show a faith in a better tomorrow. That’s what made him such a formidable candidate, before he bought into the dearly held Democratic view of American mediocrity. As we’ve seen again this week, the Democratic party is always a millstone around its nominee’s neck.

Not that the Republican party isn’t a millstone around Senator McCain’s neck, of course.

John Judis observes:

"After securing the nomination in June, Obama's first priority had to be healing the rift between himself and Hillary Clinton. Candidates who can't put nomination battles behind them well before the convention usually lose. Think of Goldwater in 1964, Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Walter Mondale in 1984. There are only two candidates I can remember who succeeded in overcoming intraparty rifts during the convention--John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980--and they did it by nominating their primary opponents to be vice president."

This was highlighted again last night by Joe Biden's speech. It was typical Biden - long-winded, gaffe-ridden, melodramatic. It was not the speech of a man who has a large national constituency and is comfortable on a stage in front of tens of millions of viewers. Obama would have instantly healed any rifts in his party, and probably would also have a sizable lead over McCain right now, if he had picked Clinton instead. (And if he had to pick a Biden, he should have gone with the senator's son, Beau, the Delaware attorney general who has a record of military service and gave an excellent introduction to his father last night.)

Also, is it just a coincidence that the two most effective speeches of the convention so far - Bill and Hillary's - are the two speeches the Obama campaign had the least control over?

The progress of TradeSports/Intrade during the convention week illustrates just what a stellar show the Democrats have put on. Obama's now trading at an all-time low, McCain at an all-time high. Bring on Invesco!

HT: Ace

Joe Biden gave a speech in which—in contrast to Bill Clinton’s —Barack Obama is an actor. He makes choices and does important things from the time he is a young adult to the present. Instead of choosing Wall Street after college, he goes to Chicago, and he makes the lives of poor people the work of his life. Later, as a state senator, he fights for health care for parents and children in Illinois who don’t have it. “He got it done,” said Biden. When Obama arrives in the U.S. Senate, he hits the ground running. He fights for ethics reform. He reaches across party lines to pass a law to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. He moves Congress and the president to give our veterans better health care.

In truth, Biden didn’t have a lot to work with. Obama’s résumé is thin (just three accomplishments from his time in the Senate). But, in contrast to Clinton, Biden at least tried to present Obama in terms of what he’s done. Biden’s argument was that because he “got it done in the past, he can get it done in the future, the issues being much more important, of course. You can expect Biden to keep pitching Obama in this way. Just as you can expect him to continue to attack John McCain as directly as he did and in his strongest areas, foreign policy and national security.

By the way, Biden failed to bring up the little matter of the surge, on which Obama was wrong and McCain was right. This will surely draw a sharp response from the McCain campaign.

Our four day national nightmare is almost over. If we can just get through tonight! In the meantime, some thoughts on yesterday:

1) THE BIG HE - Everyone else went gaga over Bill Clinton. I didn’t, but then again objectivity when it comes to this particular political figure has never been my calling card. I guess since none of the speakers who preceded Clinton even bothered to make a case for Obama, the bar had been set low. Since Clinton actually put forth an argument about why specifically Barack Obama as opposed to any generic Democratic nominee should be president, he rallied the faithful.

At the risk of tamping down all the good Democratic feelings, the finishing coda of the speech where Clinton reminded everyone that his political foes had said in 1992 that he wasn’t ready was clearly a dig at Obama. If you compare the résumé of the 1992 Bill Clinton with the 2008 Barack Obama – well, there is no comparison. Clinton had been a longtime governor, an attorney general and a noted policy wonk who could talk with mind-numbing specificity on virtually every issue. Indeed, he did speak with mind-numbing specificity on virtually every issue. Obama, on the other hand, is a longtime community organizer, a former associate at a small law firm and a short-timer in the Senate with no accomplishments. His grasp of policy is questionable, his willingness to discuss policy non-existent. Bill Clinton must surely know that in any comparison between his 1992 self and the present day Barack Obama, Obama comes up a loser.

Even still…At the risk of letting the facts intrude on Clinton’s auto-hagiography, Bill Kristol rightly points out that in spite of having glittering credentials for such a young candidate, Clinton in fact wasn’t ready for the White House. I bet even Democrats of a certain vintage remember the series of Clinton pratfalls that paved the way for the Gingrich Revolution. So if a young fellow as prepared as Clinton was in fact ill-prepared for the task that awaited him in the Oval Office, what does that say about Obama?

I must, however, confess some pity for the former POTUS. Throughout his wife’s speech on Tuesday, Bill Clinton repeatedly mouthed the touching sentiment, “I love you.” Hillary didn’t return the favor last night – not once. It must cut like a knife to be so uxorious and not have your feelings reciprocated.

2) THE DEMOCRAT BIG TENT – During a chat with Chris Wallace, Howard Dean said, “We’re reaching out to Evangelicals and people like that.” I’m sure Evangelicals everywhere were touched by the gesture. Same thing for people like that.

3) HEY JOE – America learned last night what political junkies have long known – Joe Biden is a perfectly mediocre politician. As Mickey Kaus mordantly observed, Biden has longevity, not gravitas. His speech last night was pure Biden – he comes across as a decent guy, but not a particularly impressive one. Since he’s the one who’s supposed to add ballast to the meringue-like Obama juggernaut, he didn’t get the job done last night.

4) NOT ENOUGH RED MEAT? – If you read the lefty blogs, you know they share one common complaint- the convention hasn’t been mean enough to the Republicans. They all seem to want their anger expressed from the convention dais.

What they don’t understand is that anger is an unattractive thing. Going negative is one thing – going negative with anger is quite another. The angry left that somehow managed to see John Kerry’s speech last night lapped it up. It was an extended, bitter whine about swiftboating and the Bush administration. It was typically humorless and utterly unappealing. In other words, it was pure Kerry.

One of the reasons Barack Obama enjoyed such success is that he transcended the Democratic paradigm of seeking office through a combination of whining and grievance-mongering. Most of the country has no idea just how angry the angry left is. It would be to the Democrats good fortune if things remained that way.

In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said this:

“My fellow Democrats, sixteen years ago, you gave me the profound honor to lead our party to victory and to lead our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity.

Together, we prevailed in a campaign in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief. Sound familiar? It didn’t work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it won’t work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.”

But Clinton was too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief in 1992.

He was handed an enviable situation in foreign policy: 12 years of Reagan and Bush had resulted in victory without a shot in the Cold War, and the defeat of Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. Clinton then managed in his first two years to preside over an embarrassment in Haiti, a debacle in Somalia, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and genocide in Rwanda. Over the rest of the decade, Clinton managed to allow further erosion in the position of American strength he inherited.

Clinton didn’t, as he now claims, lead us “to a new era of peace.” He inherited a hard-won peace, failed to lead, and part of his legacy is 9/11. It was understandable (if unfortunate) that in 1992, after the end of the Cold War, the American people would think they could afford a president who would fatuously think it enough to claim to be “on the right side of history” (whatever that means), rather than being willing to make tough decisions. I doubt Americans are so complacent today.

The latest from Fred Kagan, current as of 12:30 A.M.:

* The deployment of NATO warships to the Black Sea has definitely gotten Moscow’s attention, drawing a combination of bravado, threats, and shrugs from the Russian military. The key issue is most likely that Russia cannot match the naval buildup it sees coming in the Black Sea with its own vessels, at least not in a timely fashion. Moscow is reacting as though it has confidence that NATO ships will not do anything but sail around for a few weeks and leave, but it is manifesting its discomfort at the demonstration that it does not control the Black Sea.
* Russia continues to accuse Georgia of planning to re-attack South Ossetia, and has served notice that any American attempt to rearm Georgia to pre-war levels will be seen as American encouragement for such an attack.
* Russia is expanding its peacekeeping perimeter, but refuses to define its “security zone” with any precision. It acknowledges the presence of Russian forces in Poti, but obfuscates the basis and nature of that presence. Russian forces are cleansing South Ossetia of Georgians, but the evidence in the MoD releases is naturally oblique, and I will return to this issue in subsequent updates.
* Moscow is exerting a combination of pressures and promises on Ukraine, holding out the possibility of continued military-industrial collaboration but denouncing Ukrainian haggling over the Black Sea Fleet’s presence in Sevastopol. In general terms, the tenor of Moscow’s messages to Ukraine appears to be calming from its initial flurry of indignation. On the other hand, the Russians ostentatiously sortied the Black Sea Fleet flagship from Sevastopol, giving the Ukrainians no notice and initially offering a false explanation of its destination and the purpose of its mission. Moscow has thereby served notice that it will not respect President Yushchenko’s demands for notification of planned sorties, their destinations, and their purposes.
* Armenia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, China, and the Czech Republic have all been singled out in MoD releases for supporting Russia either by offering humanitarian aid to South Ossetia or by considering sending military advisors there under the auspices of the OSCE.
* The General Staff also announced that it is reviewing the experience of this conflict for lessons for Russian military modernization, particularly in the areas of suppressing enemy air defenses and in information operations.
* Strong evidence suggests that Moscow still aims to encourage the Georgians to remove Saakashvili from power and will continue to exert various forms of leverage, including the occupation of Georgian territory, to that end.

Bill Clinton left no doubt that he’s for Barack Obama. But it’s striking that his case for Obama depended much less on any accomplishments by the candidate than on his intelligence, character, “family heritage,” “life experiences,” and promise. Consider that section early on in which Clinton said that Obama has an ability to inspire people, that he has the intelligence and curiosity a successful president needs, that he understands our increasingly diverse nation, etc. Only at the end of the section did Clinton discuss things Obama has actually done, and they included the odd ones of (in effect) winning the long primary battle against Hillary and then, just last week, picking Joe Biden as his running mate. “His first presidential decision,” Clinton called it. Usually, of course, presidential candidates do the deeds that qualify them for the job before they run for it.

Nearing the end of his speech, Clinton actually did cite Obama’s “achievements” as proof of “our continuing progress toward the ‘more perfect union’ of our founders’ dreams.” Clinton did not say what those achievements are. But it’s clear in context that Clinton had in mind one achievement--that of becoming the first African-American to be nominated president.

Some voters will choose Obama because he would be the first black American to be elected president. Yet it’s doubtful that this vote will be large enough to carry him to the White House. On this night, Clinton was not a compelling advocate.

The first thing that jumps out from Biden's speech is that the tone seems to appeal to the Jacksonians in the Jacksonian / Academic divide that Michael Barone explored during the primaries. He talks about "honor" and fighting and bloodying the nose of neighborhood bullies and the bearing of crosses.

This is not the type of imagery that Obama has been comfortable trading in.

John Kerry contrasted John McCain's bellicose reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia with Barack Obama's "statesmanlike" response. Recall Obama's first statement about the invasion: "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war."

As John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann aptly observed: “That's kind of like saying after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that Kuwait and Iraq need to show restraint, or like saying in 1968 [when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia] ... that the Czechoslovaks should show restraint".

President Clinton seems willing to put his arms around Obama in a way Hillary wasn't. He actually does say that Obama is ready to be president and defender of the Constitution (though not, interestingly, commander-in-chief). And he mounts a short defense of Obama by saying that in 1992 he, too, was charged with not being experienced enough for the job.

But still. It remains true that nothing either of the Clintons said about Obama wouldn't be equally applicable to any other nominee. The only Obama-specific recommendation President Clinton makes is that "His family heritage and life experience have given him a unique capacity to lead our increasingly diverse nation and restore our leadership in an ever more interdependent world."

One other note: Earlier the Democrats wheeled out Michele S. Jones, who gave the angriest speech of the convention. In addition to the tone being somewhat off-putting, Jones included this strange line: "America’s service men and women need a president and a commander-in-chief with the courage to serve, the gift to lead and the ability to get things done." She's not exactly pointing to Obama's strengths.

In anticipation of Joe Biden's introduction to the millions of Joe Sixpacks he's supposed to appeal to, I can't resist posting Biden's "I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you" video:

While the Dems are abuzz with their new anti-Bush/McCain "four more months" catchphrase, courtesy of Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey, they seem to have forgotten to take a look at the calendar. Inauguration day, December 26, 2008? Not quite. Nonetheless, not once but twice, Casey demanded "Not four more years. Four more months." The Democratic ticket is all about the "future," but that future is not coming as soon as they would like us to believe.

During his remarks, Harry Reid called offshore drilling "snake oil and quackery" and said that "Doc McCain’s magic offshore oil elixir won’t work." Reid went on to ever so subtly bring up McCain's age by calling him "kindly old Doc McCain."

Reid also argued: "Senator McCain and the Republicans have centered their answer to our vital energy needs on one solution: offshore drilling." But of course McCain's energy plan offers more solutions than just offshore drilling, such as more nuclear power. Will Jonathan Chait denounce this scurrilous lie?

I sure hope not. Every time Reid brings up the Democrats' obstructionism on offshore drilling, McCain wins.

Denver
During that Democrats for Life meeting today, held at the Monaco Hotel not far from the Pepsi Center, some of the speakers criticized an ostensibly pro-life Republican Party for failing to make serious progress on a pro-life agenda. One criticism in particular was that despite the fact that Republican presidents have appointed all but two of the last nine Justices, the Supreme Court still hasn’t overruled Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision in which the Court declared a constitutional right to abortion.

Three thoughts:

First, Democratic congressman Lincoln Davis, one of the speakers who made this argument, failed to distinguish between (1) an overruling of Roe, which would restore to the people the authority to decide abortion policy, and (2) what that policy should be. After all, you can regard Roe as awful constitutional law (if even constitutional law) and still be for the abortion right as a matter of policy. Of course, pro-choicers would regard an overruling of Roe as a huge setback, since what the Court handed them in Roe would now have to be won again through the ordinary political process. From that perspective, an overruling of Roe could be said to be pro-life, but only in the sense that a loss for us is a win for them.

Second, if Davis truly laments the Court’s failure to strike down Roe, he can blame the pro-choicers who dominated his own party in 1987 when a Senate Democratic majority blocked the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. No one right or left doubts that had Bork been confirmed, and thus his eventual replacement Anthony Kennedy not nominated and confirmed, Roe would have been overruled, probably in one of the series of abortion cases in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which the Court was explicitly asked to overrule Roe.

Third, the Senate Democrats’ general in the Bork confirmation battle was none other than Joe Biden. Wonder what the pro-life Davis thinks of Biden’s role in that historic showdown. Biden, by the way, flip-flopped on Bork, changing his mind little more than a week after the judge was nominated, thanks to the anguished importuning of liberal interest groups.

A Hill aide points out this Seattle Times article, which reports that Democratic congressman Brian Baird is still a pariah in his own party for deciding to back the surge last August:

Brian Baird was lonely enough back when all his Democratic friends thought he was wrong.

But now that it appears he was right — that the Iraq war was going better, as he claimed, and President Bush's troop surge was working — the Southwest Washington congressman is even more of an outcast.

Now nobody much wants to talk to him about Iraq at all.

"After all that extraordinary outrage directed at me, not one person has called me up and said 'Hey, Brian, it looks like you might have had a point after all,' " said Baird, in Denver for his party's national convention this week.

"We say Bush is so blinded by ideology that he ignores the facts in the real world, and that's true," Baird said. "Aren't we doing the same thing? We're being just like Bush."

Baird touched off a furor last August when he effectively switched from the anti-war side by coming out in support of the troop buildup, which Democrats almost universally were trying to block.

I went down to Vancouver last summer to see Baird explain himself to his angry constituents. It was, I wrote, "one of the most severe tongue-lashings I've ever seen administered to a public official, at least face to face."

Six hundred people — from veterans to teachers, from a Columbia River boat captain to a lady who plays bagpipes at soldier funerals — spent nearly four hours calling Baird a sellout, Bush's lap dog, a neocon pet. Some told him to resign.

For all the grief he's taken, it's surprising that Baird is offering sound advice to his colleagues:

"We ought to just say that it worked. People were understandably skeptical of the administration at the time. But we have to acknowledge reality. Do you stay with a political position because it's popular even if it doesn't square with the facts?"

Baird's view is that if "the people in our party advocating for an immediate withdrawal of troops last year had gotten their way, it would have been disastrous for the U.S."

The McCain campaign has some wardrobe recommendations for those of us going to Invesco Field tomorrow.

Denver
After visiting the Manifest Hope gallery, I did a dispatch with tons of pictures of the new Obama iconography. Some of it has to be seen to be believed.

I was so moved by the change and the hope, that I dropped $20 on an Obama T-shirt:

As you can see, this is more of an Old Testament Obama, watching over His people in stern judgment.

Charles Krauthammer and others have noted the odd grandiosity of Obama's creation of a miniature Greek temple for the backdrop of his acceptance speech tomorrow.

But it seems to me that what Obama is likely trying to do is not suggest an Olympian setting, but rather to invoke the Lincoln Memorial, putting himself in MLK's place since we're marking the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream Speech."

This would be perfectly in keeping with Obama's modus operandi, which is to consistently invoke the words or symbols of other leaders instead of creating his own.

Here's Dave Barry on Joe Biden:

"The transformation of Joe Biden is one of the best story lines at this convention. A week ago, people would sprint from the room when Joe entered for fear he would start a sentence that might not end until Halloween. Now, suddenly, he is a towering stud muffin of charisma. His every move is big news. On Tuesday, the Rocky Mountain News ran a story headlined 'Would-be veep eats at Boney's.' It stated that Joe went to a Denver restaurant called Boney's Barbecue, which had been alerted in advance by the Secret Service (I am not making this up) to have smoked turkey legs ready. However, when Joe got there, he went with the pulled-pork sandwich. He's for Change!"

Seen in a storefront window close to the Pepsi Center: “Liberal Markdowns: 50 to 70% Off.” Ah, something liberal in this Democratic week that you have to like.

Denver
Georgian Ambassador Vasil Sikharuldize is one of the busiest men at the Democratic National Convention, hopping from meeting to meeting to seek American aid for his embattled country. When I caught up with him Monday night, he told me that the need for $1 billion in economic assistance from the United States—to help rebuild both Georgia’s civilian and military infrastructure—has been a focus of his talks with Democratic leaders, such as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

“What we’re talking about are strictly defensive capabilities,” he said, arguing that it would be “unimaginable” that Georgia’s small military would confront Russia. “We need new radars, new air fields, new military bases.”

Though Sikharuldize said the sale of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons from the U.S. to Georgia was not a measure currently being discussed, he told me: “We believe as a matter of deterrence this kind of equipment may be very helpful for us.” The ambassador also believes that “security cooperation,” including “frequent visits of U.S. officials to train Georgians,” is of the utmost importance, whether conducted “bilaterally or through NATO.”

Amb. Sikharuldize said that Russia’s belligerence demonstrates why Georgia ought to be admitted to NATO. He argued that the NATO's Article 5—which states an attack on one member country shall be considered an attack against all—would “serve as a deterrent.” As we discussed how the recent conflict may complicate Georgia’s bid for NATO membership, Sikharuldize said: “We will not enter NATO with any deal that treats South Ossetia or Abkhazia as special areas”—meaning that those areas should be viewed “as full parts of Georgia as any other part of Georgia.” In other words, an invasion of South Ossetia or Abkhazia would require a response by NATO members under Article 5, which would, the ambassador argues, deter a future attack.

Minneapolis
While Democrats prepare for night three in Denver, Republicans kicked off their pre-convention week in Minnesota yesterday. And with the recent polling and the media spending the first half of the Democratic convention debating whether Obama can win over Clinton supporters, the activists and delegates here are increasingly enthusiastic.

The convention will take place at the Xcel Energy Center in downtown St. Paul. Construction workers are busy transforming the sports/concert venue into a political convention hall. The floor of the Xcel Center--home of the Minnesota Wild hockey team--is a sea of new, red industrial carpet covering the ice rink. Workers are assembling chairs, building a podium, and running miles of cable. It looks like Extreme Home Makeover-Political Edition.

About 10 miles west, at the Minneapolis Convention Center, Republican delegates and party officials will finish drafting the GOP platform today. I sat through the deliberations yesterday and today and had a chance to talk to some of the participants.

The platform is being billed as the most grassroots-driven document in convention history, receiving over 10,000 ideas and comments through the first-ever online input process. But despite the contributions, the document is only about half the length of the 2004 platform. It’s divided into six major themes: 1. Economy, 2. National Security, 3. Spending and Government Reform, 4. Energy and the Environment, 5. Crime and American Values, and 6. Healthcare and Education. While the drafting and amending process has been rather smooth, delegates did conduct spirited debate over immigration, stem cell research, and global climate change. All of these issues, however, were resolved to the satisfaction of those involved, including the McCain campaign. There will be no minority reports or substitutes offered on the floor next week.

A convention veteran told me this: “The McCain campaign did a very smart thing. They let the delegates work their will and didn’t try to impose a heavy hand and just say no to every little change in the platform. The document will be something the party and the candidate can strongly support.”

The lack of platform fireworks is a welcome development.

"I’ve been to every convention since 1980,” a seasoned former congressional aide told me. “There have been many times where delegates caused a lot of trouble and it looked like the party was divided. This time they feel we can win--despite all the negatives--and we’re very unified. That’s why this platform process is moving ahead so smoothly.”

Another platform staffer said, "The parliamentarian seems really bored. We like it that way."

That's the claim that author Derek Chollet makes in this blog-post. A friend of mine isn't convinced. He writes:

"Chollet tries to argue that an Obama administration will follow the same centrist foreign policy that President Clinton pursued in his second term, which he characterizes as resting on three pillars: 'Embracing globalization and trade; promoting democracy; and developing a concept on the use of force that turned the usual liberal debate about using military power on its head - instead of the burden of proof falling on those advocating intervention, the burden fell on those who advocated doing nothing in the face of aggression (as we saw in the Balkans). By the late 1990s, and still today, these ideas framed the mainstream of Democratic foreign policy.'

"Although this is a fair characterization of the way the Clinton administration saw the world in the late 1990s, it bears little resemblance to where the Democratic party is today – which has drifted pretty far left over the past eight years under the influence of Moveon.org.

"First, with regard to trade, Chollet acknowledges that Obama and Biden 'have criticized some of the specifics of trade agreements, but have been steadfast defenders of an open global economy.'

"Let’s reflect on this for a moment. Obama has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, calling it a 'bad deal.' He has opposed every significant trade agreement that has come before Congress since he was elected to national office, including trade deals with key U.S. allies like Colombia and South Korea. To say that Obama has 'criticized some of the specifics of trade agreements' but is otherwise a 'steadfast defender of an open global economy' is like claiming that, other than his 36 years in the US Senate, Joe Biden is a fresh face in American politics. It’s absurd.

"Chollet’s next point point: 'Although strong critics of the Iraq war, Obama and Biden are hardly doves - they have called for doing more to end the genocide in Darfur and have advocated the use of force to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.'

"Seriously? The new litmus test for foreign policy toughness is ... a willingness to use force to kill Obama bin Laden? And 'doing more' about Darfur? "More" of what, exactly?

"And the final kicker: 'And [Obama and Biden] have made clear that they believe the U.S. must remain a steadfast defender of democracy around the world - as their response to the Georgia crisis demonstrates.'

"Perhaps Derek wasn’t paying attention, but Obama’s initial response to the Georgia crisis was to apportion blame equally between Russia and Georgia. It was explicitly not to draw a distinction between an authoritarian aggressor and a fellow democracy that was being victimized.

"I feel genuine sympathy for Chollet and his kin – hawkish foreign policy Democrats who have been hiding out at think tanks for the past couple years, eagerly awaiting their return to executive power, whereupon they hope to sweep left wing nuttiness from the party. Alas for them, the netroots aren’t going anywhere – and by all accounts, the presidential candidate they are about to nominate is closer in foreign policy instincts and temperament to the Daily Kos bloggers than he is to the liberal internationalists at the Center for a New American Security and the Brookings Institution."

For what it's worth, I am more favorably inclined to Chollet's interpretation than my friend - the realities of a dangerous world will likely lead President Obama to embrace the use of force and intervene abroad more frequently than his supporters believe (and hope). But it is also true, as my friend points out, that Obama's initial response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, and his passionate willingness to negotiate with dictators around the globe, suggest that his instincts are closer to MoveOn than Brookings.

At its midpoint, it looks increasingly like the 2008 Democratic National Convention will be seen as a strategic failure. Michelle Obama's speech and the appearance of the Obama daughters worked well, but that was quickly overtaken by Hillary Clinton's launch of her 2012 presidential candidacy. And tonight Bill Clinton will dominate the network broadcasts and commentary, overshadowing vice presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Americans watching the Democratic National Convention have seen and heard relatively little of the Democratic candidate for president. Instead, they are watching another chapter of their favorite political drama - The Clintons - unfold before them. Meanwhile, the nationally televised speeches have had few direct assaults on John McCain and President Bush - fewer, at least, than one would have expected. And with the unveiling of his own Greek temple at Invesco Field, Obama will play into the McCain campaign's "celebrity" critique.

Obama's nominating speech will be a historic occasion that will no doubt receive plaudits from the press, deserved or not. It will be a moment to remember. So many other moments during this convention seem like wasted opportunities.

Denver
It sounds like a joke: How many pro-life Democrats can you fit in a room? All of them! This afternoon, about 60 people gathered for a town-hall meeting of pro-life Democrats. Of this group, about eight were speakers and another dozen (at least) were media. Maybe the joke is right.

That said, the pro-life Democrat caucus is admirable, in its own way. Rep. Heath Shuler (who will run for national office some day, count on it) gave a pretty impressive accounting for life issues, not only attacking abortion, but making a point of noting that life spans from conception to natural death.

The most impressive of the pro-life Dems, however, was Rep. Lincoln Davis. Like the other pro-life Dems, Davis didn't talk much about Roe v. Wade (except, oddly enough, to blame Republican appointees on the Supreme Court for not overturning it). The pro-life Democratic position is now centered around reducing the number of abortions, with questions of law to follow at some later date.

And to this end, Davis hauled out a very interesting bit of data: In 1973, the year of Roe, 9 percent of pregnancies to unmarried women resulted in voluntary adoptions. By 2000, that number had collapsed to 1 percent, with abortion taking the hindmost. Davis and the other Democrats see the active promotion of adoption as a workable, immediate pathway to reducing abortion.

It's a good place to start.

Denver
Following a panel hosted by Democrats for Life of America, I asked Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey Jr. if he would filibuster any bill that would provide taxpayer funding for abortions through Medicaid or insurance coverage of abortion through a national health care plan--measures that Barack Obama has said he will enact as president. Casey replied that he and Obama "obviously disagree" on taxpayer funding of abortion, but he declined to say if he would support a filibuster: "I'm not going to make prognostications about legislative strategies on this or any other issue."

Democrats have been trying to reach out to pro-life voters by arguing that as president Barack Obama would do more than John McCain to reduce the abortion rate by funding government programs to prevent unintended pregnancies and support pregnant women. But taxpayer funding would likely do much more to increase the number of abortions than these programs would reduce them.

Following the November elections, in all likelihood, the only way to prevent abortion-funding legislation from passing the Senate would be a filibuster that has the support of pro-life Democratic senators like Bob Casey Jr. and Harry Reid. Casey's refusal to state his position on such a filibuster should be of great concern for anyone committed to reducing the number of abortions.

Mark Leibovich asked delegates to the convention: Who would be greeted with "more contempt"? Joe Lieberman or John Edwards?

"'Lieberman, definitely,' said Lola Hopper, a delegate from Texas. 'If he showed his face, he’d have to leave town in the back of a trunk.'"

His quick take: "What's the finish? Maybe Obama’s got Zhang Yimou to do the hidden-rope trick, and have him lifted, Beijing-style, to the heavens when he’s done. Will he reappear three days later at the Bird’s Nest?"

After all, he is a citizen of the world.

When John Kerry tabbed John Edwards as his running mate in 2004, certain members of the pundit class swooned. They figured Edwards’ immense political skills would dramatically bolster Kerry’s chances. Me, I was perplexed. If John Edwards was in fact such a magnificent political talent, how come he had just lost a race to John Kerry? As law school lecturers like Barack Obama like to say, “Res ipsa loquitur.” Unsurprisingly, Edwards went on to serve as a lackluster running mate. If you don’t believe me on that score, I encourage you to check out Bob Shrum’s catty, tell-all memoir.

Now it’s Joe Biden’s skills that are being unjustly lionized by the gullible among us. The Politico reports:

Democrat Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as a running mate is complicating Republican John McCain’s analysis of his prospective vice presidential contenders.

Biden will make his formal debut Wednesday with a primetime address. McCain is expected to announce his pick after Obama accepts his nomination here on Thursday.

Some insiders are pressing McCain to make a strategic selection, one that beefs up his economic strength, enhances his chance to grab a state or amps up the partisan firepower.

“McCain knows Biden well. He knows how good he is as a knife fighter. He’ll take McCain apart,” said one Republican operative.

But a review of the much-rumored McCain shortlist clearly exposes the weaknesses each person on it might bring if matched up against the six-term senator from Delaware.

If Biden is such a gifted political knife fighter, how come he got less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses, a result that chased him from the race? True, he did better than Dennis Kucinich, but has that become our gold standard for campaigning excellence?

Biden is a lackluster choice because he is a lackluster politician. His defenders will of course point to his 36 years in the senate as a selling point, but what good is experience if it doesn’t beget insight? Biden’s plan for partitioning Iraq remains the single most cockamamie contribution to the Iraq war debate over the past five years. And that’s no small accomplishment.

But please – no one in the media should allow my negativity to alter their narrative of Biden as a political Ubermensch. America should expect a veritable Cicero when the garrulous gaffe machine takes the stage tonight. And woe to the poor Republican who has to debate this formidable figure with the nation watching this Fall.

Montana governor Brian Schweitzer's speech to the Democratic convention last night brought the crowd to its feet. Schweitzer's performance was excellent. He bobbed and weaved, stretched words like taffy, and had the audience hanging on his every word. There's a problem, however. It's this line: "Barack Obama understands the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use."

Anti-carbon activists may not like it, but the fact is the global economy runs on fossil fuels. It will be a long, long time before those fuels are replaced by alternative energy, government subsidies notwithstanding. Using fewer barrels of oil requires constraining human behavior. This is not a winning message for the Democratic party.

Jay Cost on night two: Obama "is the nominee. He could have given Hillary the vice-presidential nomination. Choosing her would have totally changed the convention for the better. But Obama didn't choose her. He tapped Joe Biden instead. As a consequence, he's lost control of his own convention."

Read the whole thing, as they say.

From the New York Times, “High Anxiety in the Mile High City” by Maureen Dowd

On the occasions when Maureen Dowd is good (which admittedly are rare), her work officially rises to the level of “guilty pleasure.” So smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, because here comes MoDo at her best:

I’ve been to a lot of conventions, and there’s always something gratifyingly weird that happens.

Dan Quayle acting like a Dancing Hamster. Teresa Heinz Kerry reprising Blanche DuBois. Dick Morris getting nabbed triangulating between a hooker and toes.

But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.

“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.

“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied…

(Hillary) offered the electrifying fight that the limpid Obama has not — setting off paranoia among some Democrats that they had chosen the wrong nominee or that Obama had chosen the wrong running mate. “It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together in the Twin Cities because these days they are awfully hard to tell apart,” she said.

Afterward, some of her supporters began crying, as they were interviewed by reporters, saying that her speech had proved that she would make a better president than Obama. And, as one said, she would only give him “two months” to prove himself.

One video that’s been receiving much play lately is Suzanne Malveaux’s CNN interview of an upset Clinton supporter following the former first lady’s speech last night. Not to get all Ghost Hunters about it, but did anyone else wonder what happened at the tail-end of that interview? The distraught woman ends her thought (about Obama’s résumé) around the four-minute mark and in the background you hear a man’s voice say, “Let’s go.” As the camera pans out, behind Malveaux is a man in a blue shirt who then talks to the supporter with very firm hand gestures. Could he be one of the Obama whips we’ve all been hearing about? (Or a fellow delegate just hungry for dinner?)

Jonathan Martin, who looked dashing in his pink oxford at the Politico party last evening, reports that John McCain told supporters in San Diego that he intends to compete in California. Several of the supporters I spoke to in Beverly Hills on Monday said that McCain promised them the same thing. And virtually every single one thought it was A) very unlikely, and B) very foolish if true.

Republican presidential candidates say this kind of thing every four years, of course, and rarely follow through. Martin is right when he says that "compete" can be interpreted broadly.

From City Journal, “Fire in the Night” by John Murtaugh

This excellent essay and the film snippet above provides insight into Obama buddy William Ayers, while casting doubt on the candidate’s typically sly evasion of his moral responsibility for hanging around with such a cretin.

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night…

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

Personally, I don’t think Obama’s association with William Ayers says anything about where he wants to take the nation. There’s no reason to infer that Obama sympathizes with the Weathermen’s agenda, and to suggest otherwise is more than a touch overwrought. Then again, given the attempt on his family’s lives, Murtaugh is entitled to being more than a touch overwrought. The Obama/Ayers relationship does, however, say a great deal about how Barack Obama is a conventional thinker and actor who thoroughly and meekly reflects the values of his environment.

In the Wall Street Journal today, Dan Gerstein has a phenomenally obtuse op-ed positing that Obama is “an independent-minded, orthodoxy-challenging, gutsy leader.” The orthodoxy in Obama’s Hyde Park neighborhood was to embrace the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. Now let’s say there was an aspiring politician in the neighborhood who was a truly "independent-minded" and gutsy leader with proper moral bearings. That guy would have eschewed the opportunity to befriend William Ayers. Famously, the putatively gutsy Obama did no such thing. Barack Obama embraced Ayers with particular gusto.

Closely associating with William Ayers was a moral decision and a wretched one at that. All Obama has left to do in regards to this issue is deny the obvious - that it was indeed a moral decision. For the morality of cozying up to such a figure will strike most people as indefensible.

HT: Jonah Goldberg, Allah

The podium at Invesco kind of looks like Jordan's Temple of Hercules, where Obama delivered a speech during his world tour:

Eagle-eyed reader (and Iraq War veteran) JB Smith emails that if the Republicans feel it necessary to counter Obama’s master stroke of tapping Joe Biden as vice-president, there’s only one serious option – Trent Lott.

Think of it. Both have comical pseudo-hair. Both gravitate to the career-ruining gaffe. Both talk too much. Scratch that – both talk way too much. And both have been around Washington since the earth cooled (although it feels like longer).

Fortunately, it doesn’t appear the McCain campaign should have any reason to feel the need to counter Joe Biden. Bad news for Trent Lott, good news for the rest of us.

Last night Hillary Clinton spoke at the Democratic Convention, and technically threw her support behind Barack Obama. But bloggers agree with Real Clear Politics's Tom Bevan, who says that while she hit "almost all the right notes tonight...she did not say Obama was ready to be Commander in Chief."

Townhall's Matt Lewis says, "She endorsed Obama--but she didn't embrace Obama ..." TNR's Jonathan Chait explains that "she did not say anything positive about Obama as a person. Her reasons for supporting Obama were all ways of saying that Obama is a Democrat."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt thinks the Obama camp might not be thrilled with her speech because "Hillary was looking great and communicating one message: But for our crazy rules, I'd be the nominee and we'd be 15 point ahead." Ace explains, "So she's announcing 'Yeah, I'll do the minimum required of me, but gee, if you wanted me to be an attack dog, you should have made me Veep, and if you wanted my full support of the Democratic nominee, you should have made me the Democratic nominee.'" And at The Corner, Rich Lowry concludes, "Nothing she said tonight will be incompatible with what she'll want to say if Obama loses in November: 'Told you so.'" Still, Power Line's John Hinderaker notes, "She was intensely annoying. You could just about hear the sound of television sets clicking off all across America. Good night, Hillary."

For the record: The orange pantsuit looked fantastic, especially against the blue backdrop, and Hillary's never looked better--the infamous bags under her eyes are gone!

Regarding living Americans involved in politics whom Hillary Clinton referred to in her speech, in order of mention and excepting Obama and of course the despised (by Democrats) Bush and her own husband Bill, here is how she described them:

--Michelle Obama will be “a terrific partner” for her husband and “a great First Lady for America.”

--Joe Biden is “a strong leader and a good man,” besides being “pragmatic, tough, and wise.”

--Jill Biden is Joe’s “wonderful wife.”

--John McCain is “my friend.”

And how did Hillary describe Barack? What adjectives did she use? Which nouns? She didn’t say Obama is a “terrific” or “great” or “wonderful” person or would make a “terrific” or “great” or “wonderful” president.” She didn’t say that he’s been “a strong leader” in the Senate. She didn’t say he has proved himself to be “pragmatic” or “tough” or “wise”. She didn’t say he is “my friend.” Nor did she use any other nouns or adjectives in describing Barack, save for her silent inclusion of him in her reference to “a great team for our country” made up of the foursome of Barack and Michelle, and Joe and Jill.

Even so, Hillary declared herself “a proud supporter of Barack Obama”--just as she has always been and always will be of any Democratic nominee for President.

I’d say the distance remains, an ominous sign for Obama as he tries to close the deal this fall with skeptical Hillary supporters.

From Rasmussen Reports, “Daily Presidential Tracking Poll” by Scott Rasmussen

While dominating the last several news cycles by selecting Joe Biden as his running mate and holding the first night of his convention, Barack Obama still managed to lose four points in the Rasmussen tracking polls. Today, John McCain actually holds a one point lead. These results jibe with my theory that Barack Obama has become overexposed. Having been overexposed, a spell of All-Obama-All-the-Time like we’re in the midst of right now only exacerbates His problems. Obama has become a political version of a past its prime teen band.

Lest conservatives get over confident, Thursday will play to Obama’s strengths – the man can deliver a speech. It will be a surprise if Obama doesn’t get at least some benefit from the Invesco spectacular. But if at the end of the week, the Obama campaign remains stuck on hope, change and a visceral dislike for George W. Bush, John McCain will have a great chance to set the tone for the rest of the campaign when he takes over the spotlight on Friday.

Our four day national nightmare is now half over. Herewith, some thoughts on day two of the DNC.

1) I was doing commentary last night for New England Cable News last night, so I got to watch Hillary Clinton’s speech in the company of a couple of co-panelists who were devoted Hillary Clinton fans. This was a pleasure I don’t normally enjoy. They adored it, and adored her. One or both of them kept saying “Go Hillary!” at various junctures during the oration; I can’t remember whether it was one or both of them because by that point in the evening, the whiskey to numb the pain had officially kicked in.

Hillary did well for herself last night. She speaks decently – as well as your Chris Dodd or John Kerry type, not as well your John Edwards type, and nowhere near as well as your Barack Obama type. But still she stood out because her speech had substance, or at least a lot more substance than Barack Obama has conditioned us to expect. Careful observers will have noted that 85% of the speech would have worked just fine as a Hillary stump speech. It was a good stump speech by her standards, but it’s hard to imagine how a Hillary Rodham Clinton stump speech at this point benefits Barack Obama. I would wager a lot of Democrats around America compared her smooth effort to Obama’s recent stumbles and concluded, “We should have nominated her.” And I would double my bet that Hillary wouldn’t mind such sentiments receiving widespread public attention.

Like I said, she did well for herself last night. If Obama should lose in November, Hillary will be even more of a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination in 2012 than she was this year.

It also must be said that the film preceding her speech was excellent. Her film was made by her Hollywood friends; Monday’s dreary tribute to Ted Kennedy came from Ken Burns who normally works for PBS. Advantage free market! Of course, the mini-epic was all about her, and didn’t even pretend to have anything to do with Barack Obama. Still, I’m sure George Stephanopoulos and Paul Begala both gushed simultaneously on different networks last night, “What a team player!”

At the risk of sowing discord in the Democratic ranks, allow me to offer that Hillary did not do all that she could have done for Barack Obama. Indeed, she did the bare minimum. The speech was only a success for Obama if you considered it a possibility that she would come out and explicitly endorse McCain. Think of it this way – she and Obama have been senate colleagues for four years and spent 18 months together on the campaign trail. And she still couldn’t manage to offer a single anecdote of why she liked him or thought he should be president? Every time she said “Barack Obama,” you could have slid in “Our Generic Nominee” and the speech would have worked just as well. If she really was into all this team player stuff, she would have told America why she now appreciates the error of her ways and knows that Barack Obama should be taking that 3-in-the-morning phone call.

Putting aside Hillary’s half-hearted effort at teamwork, the whole exercise, like most of the convention to date, was pointless. Her supporters don’t belong to her – they’re not hers to “give” to Barack Obama. (Since the dead-enders simply don’t like Barack Obama, a personal endorsement from her might have helped in that regard but once again, that was obviously too much for her to muster.) If Obama is to make headway with these people, he’ll have to make the sale on his own. Maybe his umpteenth speech on Hope and Change on Thursday will get the job done.

2) It would be easy to pick on Mark Warner for giving such a dreadful speech last night that it should have been titled “No Cliché Left Behind.” But instead, let’s pick on the Democratic party. How clueless and desperate have the Democrats become? Their search for a narrative is going so poorly, they allowed Warner to give his senate stump speech as its convention’s keynote address. Maybe the Democrats have just given up on putting forth a coherent and consistent message. Brian Schweitzer was at least entertaining, albeit a touch crazed.

3) Since I was commentating for a Boston-based station last night, I got to watch Massachusetts’ beloved regent (with the Bushian approval ratings) Deval Patrick give his address. As I understand this is a thrill that eluded those watching the national networks, let me fill you in on what you missed. Patrick speaks extremely well, talks a lot about his own inspiring biography, and offers a lot of vagaries about “hope” and “aspirations.” He is seemingly allergic to specific policy pronouncements, instead focusing on the really important stuff like the need for us all to come together as “a community.” Sound vaguely familiar? During the campaign, you probably remember Obama lifting material from one of Patrick’s stump speeches. It is thus somewhat ironic that with last night’s speech, the diminutive Patrick has established himself as the lanky Obama’s de facto Mini Me.

4) With the convention half done, the Obama campaign is still desperately seeking a narrative. Have you noticed how every speaker has mentioned how much they love America? That’s new for the Democratic party. However touching these displays of patriotism have been, this is playing on McCain’s home turf. As the Republicans will probably remind America next week, John McCain has shown his love of country by actually serving it, Obama by talking about when it became politically convenient to do so.

According to the New York Post, our occasional contributor and star of Weekly Standard cruises, Mike Murphy, was bumped from MSNBC Monday night, and a TV-watching friend didn’t see him anywhere on air Tuesday night. This after MSNBC had touted the signing of its new contributor, who has starred in semi-regular appearances on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and who would provide some welcome political diversity, and wit, to MSNBC’s broadcasts.

Could it be that MSNBC is uninterested in diversity—or wit?

Reuters reports that "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple."

To which a McCain adviser quipped: "Is this from the Onion?"

No, you really can't make this up:

(Photo by Congressional Quarterly, whose great collection of convention photos can be found here.)

One of Obama’s closest contemporaries, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, made only one point worth noting: that the Democrats don’t deserve to win just because Republicans deserve to lose--that the Democrats need not just better programs and policies but also a better (than Republicans) vision. But what is that vision? Patrick said he survived the “broken” south side of Chicago because “we had a community.” And the vision Obama has, said Patrick, is “to rebuild our national community,” which presumably is also “broken.” Patrick may have been anticipating a theme of Obama’s acceptance speech Thursday. Maybe then Obama will finally describe what the rebuilt national community will look like and how he will go about doing the rebuilding. One thing you can count on for sure is that, like most reconstruction, it will not be an inexpensive project.

To follow up on Bill Kristol's report below, it looks like Mark Warner was moved earlier not just to let Deval Patrick bash McCain in prime time--but to get a back-to-back-to-back attack from Democratic governors Patrick, Ted Strickland, and Brian Schweitzer.

Warner's speech was a paean to bipartisan good government, the criticism of John McCain was brief and mild:

Two wars, a warming planet, an energy policy that says let's borrow money from China to buy oil from countries that don't like us. How many people look at these things and wonder what the future holds for them? Their children? Their country? How many?

In George Bush and John McCain's America, far too many.

Let's be fair, some of these challenges were inevitable.

Warner goes on to say that "John McCain promises more of the same. A plan that would explode the deficit that will be passed on to our kids. No real plan to invest in our infrastructure. And his plan would continue spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. I don't know about you, but that's just not right. That's four more years that we can't just afford."

Criticizing McCain on the deficit and spending billions in Iraq was pretty weak compared to what the three Democratic governors who took up the first half hour of prime time said.

Ohio's Gov. Ted Strickland went after McCain personally:

And while families are losing sleep tonight trying to figure out some way to make their paycheck stretch through one more day, John McCain is sleeping better than ever. He's sleeping better than ever because he thinks "Americans, overall, are better off..." thanks to President Bush.

And then there was this Strickland gem: "George W. Bush came into office on third base -- and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way."

Deval Patrick blamed McCain for being in cahoots with the people who "abandoned" Hurricane Katrina victims:

The same folks, with John McCain leading the charge, who say they support seniors, want to privatize Social Security and put corporate pension funds up for grabs. The same folks who call themselves "compassionate conservatives" are the folks who abandoned all those people not only after Katrina, but before that storm.

And the harshest and most personal attack came from Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer:

After eight years of a White House waiting hand and foot on big oil, John McCain offers more of the same. ... Even leaders in the oil industry know that Senator McCain has it wrong. We simply can't drill our way to energy independence, even if you drilled in all of John McCain's backyards, including the ones he can't even remember.

You know how you can tell if a Democrat has been a good attack dog? When Markos Moulitsas muses that he'll be president one day.

Politics aside, when Hollywood is finally ready to make The Dick Van Patten Story, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer should get the call.

Schweitzer:

Patten:

Tonight, Hillary Clinton did a great job paying homage to her foremothers and to what was a historic candidacy--her own, if she did say so herself. She also did a decent job contrasting McCain and Republicans with Democrats, like her. But, as observed by the Fox News panel, among others, her praise of Barack Obama was generic and formulaic. Virtually everything she said about Obama she could have said about anyone who was the Democratic nominee. She didn’t praise him personally, said nothing about his character, told no stories about how she’d come to know and admire him, and said nothing about his biography.

During two speeches to her supporters prior to tonight's remarks, Clinton was similarly silent on Barack Obama's character and experience.

But Obama fans can be happy that at least tonight Clinton didn't jab their candidate like she did earlier today: "If the president is not exactly on our side, call the first lady--and with Michelle Obama we're going to have somebody who answers that phone!"

And presumably, unlike her husband, she’ll actually stay around for Obama’s acceptance speech.

Bill Kristol calls in from the Pepsi Center. According to a source, Mark Warner was originally scheduled to speak in the 10 o'clock hour in primetime before Hillary Clinton, but Warner was moved to the less desireable pre-primetime bloc because he apparently refused to turn his speech into an attack on John McCain. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is now speaking in the 10 o'clock hour, and will read the scripted anti-McCain lines.

Recall that Warner was given the primetime spot because the Obama campaign expected Virginia to be in play. Now apparently they think attacking McCain is more important. A touch of panic?

Denver
One of Mark Warner's selling points for Obama is that "We need a president who understands the world today."

Yet one of the most troubling aspects of Obama is his consistent misreading of history. McCain pointed to one of these misunderstandings this afternoon:

[Obama] suggested that the end of the Cold War proved that there was, "no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." Now I missed a few years of the Cold War, as the guest of one of our adversaries, but as I recall the world was deeply divided during the Cold War--between the side of freedom and the side of tyranny. The Cold War ended not because the world stood "as one," but because the great democracies came together, bound together by sustained and decisive American leadership.

Obama also misread the Cuban missile crisis, mistakenly believing that Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev was a foreign policy success.

It's difficult to correctly understand today's world when you don't understand how that world was made.

Tonight's convention theme is the economy. Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, one of the most popular Democrats in the country, just a gave an effective speech on economic issues. As always with the Obama campaign, the speech was set at a high level of abstraction. But one thing you notice when you listen to the Democrats is that their economic message focuses on jobs. Unemployment is of course a major issue - but in fact the unemployment rate is not incredibly high, historically speaking. A more effective strategy, as Patrick Ruffini has pointed out, would be to focus on the high prices that affect pocket books everywhere. The Democrats don't do that, however - particularly on energy, an issue on which Democrats don't really mind the high prices at all.

This is an opening for Republicans - and a liability for Democrats. Two words you won't hear tonight: "Let's Drill."

At today’s “Faith in Action Panel,” I heard some interesting rights talk. A rabbi said that “affordable education is part of the unalienable right to happiness.” Other clergy said that education (presumably “affordable” education) and universal health care are rights we should recognize. None of these speakers said exactly how we should do that. At the very least they mean statutory rights—rights Congress establishes by legislation. Do they also have judicially created rights in mind? Could be. Obama is a living Constitution man, and he and his party are staunchly in favor of the judicially created abortion right. And do you really think Obama would object on jurisprudential grounds if a Court he reconstituted were to declare, say, a right to education?

Gallup shows McCain leading by 2 points:

Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

After the Democrats’ first ever “Faith Caucus,” I interviewed Shaun Casey, the Obama campaign’s evangelical outreach coordinator. That’s a fancy title for someone whose day job is teaching theology (at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C.) As Casey’s title suggests, Obama is “reaching out” to white evangelicals knowing that slightly more than 25% of all voters are white evangelicals (assume “white evangelicals” for the rest of the post; there are black evangelicals, but this is how pollsters see the electorate, and anyway almost all black voters, evangelical or not, vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, and will vote for Obama this year). Evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for George W. Bush in 2004, just as they did in 2000, but the Obama campaign believes that the candidate's chances of winning the presidency will improve if, in critical battleground states states with substantial numbers of evangelicals, he can reduce the size of the evangelical majorities that McCain is likely to win.

Polls testing the preferences of evangelicals thus far have obvious salience. Last week, Pew came out with its latest poll, which found that evangelicals aren’t yet moving to Obama even though they are less enthusiastic about McCain at this stage in the race than they were about Bush in 2004. Casey said that in his labors as Obama’s evangelical outreacher he’s seen this lukewarm-toward-McCain attitude among evangelicals, and he says he’s seen it in all parts of the country and among all kinds of evangelicals. Casey is hoping, of course, that some of those lukewarm evangelicals start moving to Obama, especially if they live in the battleground states. And which of those states does Casey think Obama has a chance of doing well in (by denying McCain a Bush-like majority)? Casey mentions Virginia--in which he says 32 percent of the electorate is made up of evangelicals--and Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota.

According to this Slate piece, those people arriving early to next week's Republican National Convention have a special treat waiting for them at the Minnesota State Fair. This year's fair features a new Miracle of Birth Center where visitors may witness the miracle from the comfort of the bleachers--cow births, not human. (Just to be clear.) The fair is making this an educational and comfortable experience for visitors as well as a safe and dignified experience for the livestock by instructing volunteers with specific protocol for the births. Don't worry: Should any emergencies occur, volunteers have been instructed to move the animals to a curtained area so as to not "freak people out."

The RCP Blog has a great moment from former Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson who, at an anti-war rally today, said:

"We should be led by Osama bin Laden," he said, then quickly corrected himself. "I mean Obama and Biden."

Denver
EMILY's List held a "Women Vote!" gala reception this afternoon, which I was forced to attend through a wi-fi hook-up. Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton all took the stage.

Clinton went first in a speech remarkably similar in tone to the address she gave yesterday. She began by thanking the organization and the crowd. In talking about her run for office, she had a moment reminiscent of New Hampshire, saying, "Remember, it's not just about politics. It's really personal. Because when you first start running, you have no idea where the path will lead."

Clinton then said that it was important for women to vote: "We're going to be turning out more voters and more contributors. . . . Your work is putting more cracks in that glass ceiling. . . . And thanks to you, one day it will completely shatter."

She said that it was important to add to the Democratic majorities in Congress this November. And then she talked about Barack Obama. "We need in the White House, starting on Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama and Joe Biden," she said enthusiastically. "Barack and Joe will champion the issues that we care about," she continued. "They will be there with us when we need to get that support from a president and a vice president."

Then Clinton pivoted to talk about Michelle Obama, asking, "Wasn't Michelle Obama terrific last night?" The crowd applauded enthusiastically. And here Clinton followed with a slightly jaw-dropping line. Clinton said that, "If the president is not exactly on our side, call the first lady--and with Michelle Obama we're going to have somebody who answers that phone!" It was a strange formulation, complimenting Michelle Obama while suggesting that President Obama might not always be on the right side of EMILY's List women--and then adding an allusion to the famous 3:00 A.M. ad.

Thus concluded Clinton's endorsement of Barack Obama. She then turned to John McCain, saying that "John McCain is my friend and my colleague." But she pointed out that McCain still doesn't believe in equal work for equal pay or abortion rights. Thus concluded her critique of McCain.

Wrapping up her speech, Clinton said that "the choice facing women in this election could not be clearer" as she asked them to work as hard for Obama as they did for her.

As endorsements go, they don't come more carefully calibrated.

From Time.com, “McCain Prepared Remarks at American National Legion Convention” by John McCain

While the speech John McCain gave this afternoon will lack the psychodrama of the Clinton antics this evening, I guarantee you McCain’s content will be more memorable:

There are those who say that our day as the free world’s leader has passed, that our moment is waning. They point to the anti-Americanism that is sometimes heard in Europe and elsewhere, and take this as a sign that America no longer has the strength or the moral credibility to lead. The criticisms tend to pass or quiet down when global threats and dangers appear. In times of trouble, free nations of the world still look to America for leadership, because they know the strength of America remains the greatest force for good on this earth.

My opponent had the chance to express such confidence in America, when he delivered a much anticipated address in Berlin. He was the picture of confidence, in some ways. But confidence in oneself and confidence in one’s country are not the same. And in that speech, Senator Obama left an important point unclear. He suggested that the end of the Cold War proved that there was, “no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.” Now I missed a few years of the Cold War, as the guest of one of our adversaries, but as I recall the world was deeply divided during the Cold War – between the side of freedom and the side of tyranny. The Cold War ended not because the world stood “as one,” but because the great democracies came together, bound together by sustained and decisive American leadership.

All of this is more than an academic debate. For the sake of our own security, and the defense of our values in the affairs of the world, American leadership is critical. While we have our share of critics around the world, when people in the oppressed nations of the world need support, and solidarity, and hope, they look to America. When they talk about our country, it is not with distrust or disdain, but with respect and affection. They do not resent or resist America’s democratic influence in the world – they thank God for it.

I said it at the time, and since I’m not fearful of repeating myself, I’ll say it again. Obama showed both an ignorance of history and a disregard for America’s unique role in guaranteeing freedom during his Berlin peroration. McCain can dine out on that extended pratfall, which is in fact indicative of a worldview that differs markedly from his own, from now until November.

One last thing on a writerly note. In the past, McCain’s speeches have been larded with lengthy, multiple-clause sentences. Such sentences may sometimes read well, but they’re nearly impossible to say aloud even for the most gifted speakers - which John McCain is not. Today’s written text was full of punchy, declarative sentences that lent themselves well to the speech-making format. Either McCain’s speechwriters have upped their game, or some new hands are pitching in. Regardless, today’s speech is a strong effort.

Here's a taste of today's Dave Barry column:

"I happen to semi-know [Denver] Mayor Hickenlooper, because I belong to an all-author rock band called the Rock Bottom Remainders, and when we performed in Denver two years ago, Hickenlooper joined us on stage to sing the classic Troggs song 'Wild Thing.' Really. He took the difficult vocal solo part that goes, 'You MOVED me,' and he totally nailed it. You would have sworn you were hearing an actual Trogg. The mayor got a nice round of applause from those audience members still able to clap without falling down. I mention this story because I really like saying 'Hickenlooper.' Hickenlooper Hickenlooper Hickenlooper."

Desperately searching for its long lost mojo, the Obama campaign has taken dire measures. It has dropped the beloved slogan, “Change We Can Believe In” in favor of the far more substantive, “The Change We Need.”

When I ran for state representative in Massachusetts in 1992, the electorate was restive, much as it is now. At my initial meeting where my campaign volunteers and I tried to come up with a slogan, my crazy uncle suggested something that would cut through the clutter and speak right to the voters’ hearts. “Change! Change! Change!” he offered. As he wasn’t kidding, the rest of us derisively hooted his suggestion down.

It has now become obvious that my uncle wasn’t wrong, just ahead of his time.

Maryland state senator Jim Rosapepe: "Mr. Biden has better intuition about other politicians, American or foreign, than any elected official I've ever met."

The crisis in Georgia is not going away. Russia now officially recognizes the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The White House has registered its official disapproval.

Be sure to check out Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham's piece in today's Wall Street Journal. Key quote:

For more than 60 years, from World War II through the Cold War to our intervention in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the U.S. has fostered and fought for the creation of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. This stands as one of the greatest strategic achievements of the 20th century: the gradual transformation of a continent, once the scene of the most violent and destructive wars ever waged, into an oasis of peace and prosperity where borders are open and uncontested and aggression unthinkable.

Russia's invasion of Georgia represents the most serious challenge to this political order since Slobodan Milosevic unleashed the demons of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans. What is happening in Georgia today, therefore, is not simply a territorial dispute. It is a struggle about whether a new dividing line is drawn across Europe: between nations that are free to determine their own destinies, and nations that are consigned to the Kremlin's autocratic orbit.

This Washington Post editorial dismantles the argument that the West is powerless to respond to Russia's aggression.

And Richard Holbrooke makes a crucial point: As long as Saakashvili remains the elected leader of democratic Georgia, Putin will be stymied.

Speaking of Putin, this Simon Sebag Montefiore op-ed in Sunday's Times contains the most chilling quote of the week (so far!):

[T]oday Georgia has embraced pro-Western democracy, while the Russian rehabilitation of Stalin is best illustrated by those tanks parked protectively beside the white marble temple around the humble birthplace of Iosif Dzhugashvili. This is what Vladimir Putin meant in 2005 when he said that the fall of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. And what the poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko meant when he warned, “Double, triple the guard in front of this tomb, / Lest Stalin should ever get out.” Perhaps it’s too late.

Denver
At the DNC's Faith in Action Panel, Rev. Jennifer Kottler of the Living Wage Coalition said that poverty, "like slavery more than a certury ago," is a "stain" on our nation. But this stain is much darker and deeper than most know.

"Before you think poverty is only about poor people--think again," she told the crowd a couple hundred at the Colorado Convention Center. According to Rev. Kottler, there are four types of poverty. There's "income poverty"--people living below the official federal poverty level. Then there's "extreme poverty"--those who make less than half the poverty level. And there are the "working poor"--those making 100 to 200 percent above the poverty level.

But the forgotten poor are those suffering from "asset poverty"--individuals "at any income level who live paycheck to paycheck" and could not subsist at the poverty level for 3 months without a job (emphasis mine). Rev. Kottler cited the plight of her niece and her boyfriend--who have bachelors degrees and masters degrees and work for non-profit groups--as an example of those suffering from asset poverty. "Even pooling their resources, they're having a tough time making it by."

And Kottler reminds us that poverty is a central issue for religious voters. She said, "if you cut out all the parts about poverty" in the Bible "there's not much left."

Was anyone else distracted by last night’s not-so-jumbotron? It’s one thing to have Michelle and the girls look up to see their father on the big screen, just as Nancy once did, waving to Ron. But the eye-level image of Barack talking with his wife and daughters made me think of those memory crystals in the Fortress of Solitude.

Live as one of them, Barack, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. Always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Barack, if they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you ... my only son.

The Washington Post's opinion writers will be filing quick takes on the conventions here. The upshot: you get to read Krauthammer more than once a week. Here's his first item. A sample:

Obama’s problem is that he has compounded [his thin resume] with a detached imperiousness and unnerving grandiosity so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments. Grandiosity in a de Gaulle is one thing, though even with him it often reached the point of the ridiculous. But Obama?

Read the whole thing, as they say.

From The Hill, “Bill Clinton in Denver Again Undercuts Obama” by Sam Youngman

Let me be clear – since he burst onto the political scene some 17 years ago, I have been no fan of Bill Clinton. It is thus confusing and disorienting to be feeling a tingling up my leg nearly every time the former president approaches a microphone these days:

DENVER — Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

Of course not! And only a cynic would say otherwise. I happen to be a cynic, but that’s a topic for another day. For the cynics among us, especially liberal Democrat cynics who might be a tad irked by the ongoing Clinton antics, former Clinton lackey Paul Begala offered some timely reassurance:

Paul Begala, however, told The Hill that the former president is solidly behind Obama's candidacy.

"He's totally for Barack," Begala said Tuesday. "He's totally for Barack."

Phew! Can you imagine how Clinton would behave if he were only “partially” behind Barack?

Why is the presidential race tied? It's the game everyone is playing. Democrats in particular really want to know the answer to this question. They assume, reasonably, that the underlying political conditions favor their party. They note that the Democrats maintain a sizable lead on the generic ballot. Yet Obama and McCain are running neck and neck.

Watching the Democratic convention last night, you got the sense that some Democrats are worried Obama isn't winning handily because he's not considered "American" enough. That's why Michelle Obama stressed the fundamental similarities between her family and her husband's, and their family and all American families. As David Brooks notes today, other Democrats think Obama isn't experienced, aggressive, or populist enough: "It’s like a Greatest Misses compilation of every Democratic campaign idea ever conceived."

But the simplest explanation is often best. Despite what you may be hearing, America remains a closely divided country. The parties split Americans' loyalties down the middle, give or take a few percentage points. So it doesn't help when the Democrats nominate one of the most liberal tickets in memory. Obama's problem isn't his race, or his cosmopolitanism, or his campaign style. It's his politics.

(His youth and inexperience don't help, either.)

Goldfarb is not to be missed.

David Brooks writes today that

At the core, Obama’s best message has always been this: He is unconnected with the tired old fights that constrict our politics. He is in tune with a new era. He has very little experience but a lot of potential. He does not have big achievements, but he is authentically the sort of person who emerges in a multicultural, globalized age. He is therefore naturally in step with the problems that will confront us in the years to come.

True enough. And there's a strong argument to be made that this future-oriented message is one reason for Obama's youth appeal. But then Brooks goes and writes this: "[T]he old free market policies worked fine in the 20th century, but no longer seem to be working today."

Really? China just ended an almost two-week-long coming out party showcasing its incredible economic growth since Deng Xiaoping declared "to get rich is glorious" thirty years ago. (Semi) free-market policies seem to be working pretty well for China, and free-market economics seem to be working for Eastern Europe and Ireland too, among other places.

The "old free market policies" produced a two-decade long period of low inflation and economic growth in the United States. It may be true that lately this growth hasn't been reaching everybody. That's a problem. But history suggests that drastically raising taxes and expanding the government's reach into yet more parts of our daily economic life isn't the answer. Some lessons apply equally to both the twentieth century as well as the twenty-first.

The Obama campaign decided to spend night one of the Democratic convention introducing its candidate to the country. The attacks on McCain and Bush - which reportedly were going to be the centerpiece of this convention - were relatively muted. House speaker Nancy Pelosi went after McCain, but her voice was hoarse and her oratory pretty dismal. The positive message led some Democrats, James Carville most prominently, to lament the night as a lost opportunity. Expect more aggressive rhetoric tonight.

Best speech of the night: Jesse Jackson Jr., auditioning to replace Obama in the Senate.

Best part of the convention so far: Ray Chew and Chew, providing live music. It's worth tuning into C-SPAN just to hear them play.

When Barack Obama appeared via satellite at the Democratic Convention last night, he noted that he had watched Michelle Obama's speech with the Girardeaus, a middle-class family in Kansas City. The camera pulled back to reveal the Girardeaus, who look like nice people. They are a family of few words - none, actually. They didn't say anything at all. In fact it was hard to tell if they were even breathing. Mannequins? Maybe, maybe not. But if Obama wants to demonstrate he shares "common values" with families across the country, it may be a good idea not to use those families as inanimate props.

House majority whip James Clyburn tells Jonathan Alter: "'Obama picks as a running mate someone who has never lived in Washington,' a reference to Biden taking the train home to Wilmington every night. ... Clyburn also notes that Biden, whose wife is a schoolteacher, actually has a negative net worth of $300,000. Not sure if that's true--but it's very on message."

As Alter points out, it's not entirely clear whether or not Biden has a negative net worth. But if he does, is that really an argument in his favor?

Apparently even he doesn't know.

Denver
One of the hidden wonders of this glorious convention is the lengths to which the Democrats have gone to be environmentally friendly. The media goodie bags, for instance, were filled with eco-worship products including pens made of recycled materials and a plastic bottle to carry water in so that you wouldn't buy other plastic water bottles.

But my favorite so far has been the trash regime at the Pepsi Center. So far as I can tell, on the concourses in the Pepsi Center, there are no "trash" cans. Instead, at regular intervals there are sets of three bins, marked "Recyclable," "Compost," and "Landfill." And--here's the best part--each of these little bin centers is staffed with a person in a green t-shirt who stands behind them, mutely, watching you as you throw away your garbage.

You couldn't make up a better symbol of Obama's America.

Michelle Obama looked stunning during her speech at the Democratic Convention last night. Fashion's current golden girl sparkled in a soft turquoise Maria Pinto Jackie-esque sheath and perfect hair. With her two charming daughters waiting in the wings, she certainly looked the part to try to convince Americans that she's not the angry leftist who is proud of her country "for the first time in [her] adult life."

Did she succeed? Does she really believe, as she said in her speech, what many of us have known all along: that “this great country” is one where “a girl from the South Side of Chicago can go to law school and the son of a single mother from Hawaii can go all the way to the White House"?

Many bloggers--even those on the right--were impressed. At Contentions, Linda Chavez says, "If your first introduction to Michelle Obama was the speech she just delivered--as it is for many Americans--she hit a home run." The Corner's Jonah Goldberg concludes, "It was a nice speech, well delivered and not so over-the-top with her love of country refrains that it felt forced." Also at The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru says she "did not seem aggrieved, entitled, whiny, extreme, unpatriotic, or even particularly liberal."

But Power Line's Paul Mirengoff wasn't convinced: "Plainly, Ms. Obama wishes to be viewed as an 'ordinary' American. To the extent that her real biography is known, or emerges over the course of the campaign, some voters may conclude she was a bit phony tonight." Michelle Malkin agrees: "Said with such practiced emotion. Such a professional performer." And at Contentions, John Podhoretz quips, "Michelle gets a huge ovation for saying she loves her country, 'this country that has given me so much.' I love my country too. You may begin applauding."

She might be a good actress--but I'd like to think that she's finally realized that America isn't so "mean" if a working-class South Side girl can grow up to wear a designer dress onstage as the possible future First Lady of the United States.

From National Review Online, “A Couple More Cents on Biden” by Jay Nordlinger

If I were running the conservative punditocracy, the first thing I would do is chain Jay Nordlinger to his laptop like one of those monkeys in “Last Exit to Springfield” in order to force him to turn out more copy. Check out this post from The Corner yesterday. Pure gold:

I know I’ve expressed my amazement about Biden — but I just want to put in another word. For weeks and months, reporters wrote about Obama’s vice-presidential list. It had many people on it. And among those people were Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. And I always thought, “That’s not real — that’s just lip-service to former candidates. Former candidates and party elders. That’s just a courtesy.”

And blow me down: Obama goes ahead and picks Biden.

I swear, when Biden flashes those choppers and gets that look on his face — “Well, lemme tell you, pal!” — I want to toss.

And do you remember his nauseating “shove it down his throat” performance?

Some readers have asked me, “Okay, who do you think the best pick for Obama would have been?” I think he had many good options. I might have gone with Gov. Ed Rendell, who, unfortunately, is a fabulous politician (he beat the great Lynn Swann, among others) and is very likable and reasonable-seeming. He is not a Left ideologue. He is not a college Marxist. He’s a good Democratic Joe, and talented.

One more thing about him: He doesn’t seem to be a hater. This is what I said about Joe Lieberman back in 2000. You just knew that Gore hated you (if you were a conservative or Republican or had the tiniest doubt about extreme environmentalism). And you knew that Kerry hated you. I don’t find that about Rendell.

Same with Tony Blair, as I’ve long said. One of his strengths as a politician is — he doesn’t hate you, even if you’re on the other side. Hate does not seem to reside in him. But Barack, Michelle, Hillary, Biden, Dodd — I’ve dealt with that type all my life. These people are a dime a dozen in Ann Arbor. You virtually trip over them when you get up to go to the bathroom.

And they’d rather boil Bob Bork in oil than talk to the man.

As brilliant as this little essay is, I’d make a distinction between Biden and some of the real haters like Al Gore. To my eyes, Biden doesn’t seem to really hate, but rather considers it his responsibility to bring an undue amount of unthinking pugnacity to his political chores. The net effect is of course the same. Whether Biden treated Robert Bork as he did out of hatred or a sense of partisan duty hardly matters at the end of the day.

A couple of days ago I mentioned that like a lot of people who read Richard Ben Cramer’s seminal “What It Takes,” I had a soft spot for Biden. The book communicated that there was something likable, perhaps even lovable, beneath all the bull and blarney that are so intrinsic to the Joe Biden experience. I’ve long had that sense of Biden – that beneath the surface of smirking logorrhea, there lurks a decent guy. But that doesn’t change the fact that he often practices an indecent form of politics. And it also doesn’t change the fact that he’s among the least thoughtful and least insightful members of the United States Senate.

And that’s saying something.

I don't make a practice of posting excerpts of press releases from the presidential campaigns, but this is so funny it's worth making an exception.

For some reason, the usually smart Obama campaign has decided to fight back against attempts to link their candidate to William Ayers, the Weather Underground terrorist who said in 2001 that he wished he had been a more effective bomber of American targets. The Ayers-Obama relationship is the subject of an ad from the American Issues Project, an anti-Obama group, which suggests that Obama and Ayers are friends. In response, the Obama campaign has launched a counter-ad and has written to the Justice Department to intervene.

This morning, reporters received from the Obama campaign an email citing a Huffington Post item trying to link South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to Ayers.

Below is some recent reporting about ties between Republicans and Bill Ayers:

Ayers and Governor Mark Sanford tied through the University of South Carolina. “The campaign season's hottest gotcha game -- six degrees of William Ayers -- has suddenly become a bit more complicated for John McCain and the Republican Party. It turns out that Ayers, a 60s-era radical and former Weathermen member, is linked to GOP Gov. Mark Sanford through their work for the University of South Carolina. Since 2005, Ayers has held the title of "distinguished scholar" at USC for participating in an education project. He has attended various university events, been praised highly by school administrators, even published columns on university's website. Meanwhile, Sanford holds the position of Ex-Officio Chairman of USC's Board of Trustees.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/ayers-linked-to-gop-gover_n_121363.html

So Obama's campaign is saying, on the one hand, that it's unfair to link their candidate to Ayers, although he served as chairman of a group Ayers founded and attended fundraisers at Ayers home. And at the same time the campaign is sending out emails attempting to link Mark Sanford to Ayers because they have honorary titles at the same 40,000-student university? That's funny.

Obama's complaints about the unfair linkage would be more convincing if they weren't citing sources attempting to do the same thing. And those complaints would be more convincing if Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who is close to Obama, hadn't offered his take on Obama and Ayers:

"They're friends. So what?"

The Mile High city isn't noted for its living arts, but it is home to a production called Iraq War: The Musical.

I'd love to see it, but unfortunately performances are suspended this week and won't resume until Friday. But to give you a taste of what it seems to be about, here's the promotional squib:

A Denver original musical comedy based on the true story of the false stories. All the lies, war-profiteering and hidden history behind the war in a nice, funny, singing and dancing package! The Bush administration faces many obstacles to get their never-ending war going, but they've got a few tricks up their sleeves! Whether they're keeping Americans in fear, making false connections, dealing with the pesky United Nations and press, keeping their contractor buddies rich, or taking care not to catch Osama, these rascals have plenty of things to keep them in a world of crazy high jinks! And Saddam, Osama and Blair are along for the wacky ride! You never will have laughed so hard at something which makes you so angry. It's therapeutic! It's the cure for DNC fever! It's Iraq War, The Musical!

Our four-day national nightmare is 25% over.

Unlike many of my braver and more industrious colleagues, I didn’t make it out to Denver this week. So like most of you, I’m enjoying/enduring the DNC via the television coverage. Here are some thoughts on day one as we wait for Invesco.

1) I guess the consensus is that Michelle Obama did well last night. The word “homerun” is getting bandied about in many quarters. I didn’t see it that way. True, on some levels she did well. She managed to speak for 22 whole minutes without once channeling William Ayers. She also came across as an undeniably impressive, likable figure.

But unless Team Barry’s pollsters showed Michelle having a toxic reputation and costing the ticket votes, the whole exercise seems purposeless. Yes, she bumped up her Q Rating, but to what end? Does anyone actually cast their vote based on which potential first lady they prefer? (Well, maybe that happened during the Clinton years, but those days are fortunately behind us.)

It must be said that the Obama girls were adorable. Perfect. Even this Republican curmudgeon’s heart melted when they greeted their Daddy on the huge video screen. Speaking of their daddy, what’s up with him? He couldn’t even talk to his daughters without littering his brief comments with a profusion of “ums” and misspeaking, urging the girls to “take care of the girls.” Extemporaneous speaking has never been his strength, but it now appears he has lost all confidence when letting it fly without a teleprompter.

2) Then optics of the night were all off. Even as touching as the tribute to Ted Kennedy was, the evening focused too much on an inglorious Democratic past. We got a heaping helping of Kennedy, Carter, and Kerry. This was an odd stew for the Democrats to serve when they’ve gathered to push a nominee who with his very presence fairly screams “future.” Regardless of your feelings for these fellows, Barack Obama and his campaign have nothing to do with them. It’s hard to see how having John Kerry offer tributes to Ted Kennedy is going to win Barack Obama a single swing vote or soften a lone PUMA’s heart. The Democrats had four nights to push a narrative. They wasted the first one. And with tonight certain to be dominated by Clintonian melodramas, 50% of their convention is all but officially squandered. Lucky for them they have the gifted Joe Biden poised to pick up the pieces on Wednesday.

3) There were a lot of shots of Joe Biden last night. Here’s what I don’t get about him: He was virtually bald 20 years ago, and then took some sort of corrective action. And yet he apparently limited the corrective action to a small portion of his crown. If he was going to go with plugs, why didn’t he cover his whole head? It’s my job to ask the tough questions, so here’s one: Can we afford to have a man who showed such erratic judgment a heartbeat away from the presidency?

4) The candidate who helped himself the most last night was John McCain who made a winning appearance on the Tonight Show. Almost with every passing day, he’s looking more presidential as Barack Obama’s stature shrinks.

5) On a related note, today’s Rasmussen tracking numbers do show a bounce – for McCain. He’s picked up three points since yesterday. The race is once again tied.

The McCain campaign has released a 3 A.M. phone call ad featuring a clip of Hillary Clinton saying: "I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And, Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

In case you missed it, yesterday the McCain campaign released an ad featuring a former Hillary Clinton delegate who now supports McCain:

“. . . caring for the least among us each and every day.” Thus said Michelle Obama, halfway through her speech. Her husband likes to quote this passage (from Matthew 25). Who are “the least” in Obama’s world? Lots and lots of people, including widows and orphans and, generally, those who are poor. But not the child in utero (or even, to judge by his opposition to the Illinois legislation designed to protect babies that survive abortion, actual infants). Obama needs to be asked why the unborn fail to qualify as one of his “least of these.” Maybe in one of the debates?

Introducing Michelle was her brother Craig Robinson. He is the new coach of the Oregon State basketball team. Last year he led Brown University to a school record 19 victories. Robinson played at Princeton University and was an investment banker for a while. Last year the Oregon State Beavers went 6-25 for the season, and 0-18 in conference. Brown was Ivy League, Oregon State is in the Pac-10. I’d say Robinson has some challenges ahead. Anyone out there know if there are any Republicans on that Beavers’ squad?

Jerry Kellman, the man who hired Barack Obama as a community organizer, said earlier tonight:

In 1985, I needed to hire a community organizer. I found myself in New York City, across from a 25-year-old recent college graduate. I wanted to convince him to give up a comfortable life and a bright future to come to Chicago to take up the toughest of challenges for a salary of just $10,000 a year.

As I've written before, that $10,000 figure is almost certainly incorrect. Though that amount (plus a $2,000 car stipend) is cited in Dreams from My Father, Obama said in May that he made $12,000 plus the $2,000 car stipend.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, $14,000 in 1985 translates into over $28,000 today. Speaking from personal experience, one can live comfortably in Washington, D.C., on $28,000. I'm pretty sure Obama wasn't scraping by when he was making the equivalent in 1985 in Chicago.

John McCain is at the Beverly Hilton -- known to locals as the "John Edwards Beverly Hilton" -- raising money from Hollywood Republicans. There are seven people in attendance.

Actually, the room can only hold 400 and many people wanting to buy tickets to the less-expensive reception were turned down.

Singer and dogged Hollywood conservative Pat Boone -- wearing a white suit, black shirt and black tie -- told me: "There were more entertainers in there than at any event I've ever attended."

Word from a highly reliable source: Tori Spelling -- she's famous -- was spotted at the hotel pool.

The Obama press office has just released a text of Michelle Obama’s speech “as prepared for delivery.” Here’s the sentence we’ve been waiting for: “That is why I love this country.” Catch her speech and you’ll learn the reasons she gives for her love of country.

Michelle’s “why-I-love” statement is meant to erase any impression that the would-be First Lady only recently became proud of, i.e., loved her country. The relevant evidence for that view of Michelle was a sentence in a speech she gave on February 18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Denver
Jesse Jackson Jr. has sounded a theme that the Democrats will push all week—namely that “at the heart of this campaign” is the idea that “we all have a stake in each other,” meaning, he continued, that the well-being of each depends on the well-being of us all. What Jackson didn’t say is that this idea will entail bigger, more invasive, and more costly government, a point the Republicans will hammer home in their response to Denver. The issue of the size and scope and expense of government will be, as usual between Democrats and Republicans, a point of contention between the two candidates as Election Day approaches. Don’t let ‘em say there’s only a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties!

Denver
Inside the Pepsi Center, sitting in a close-down row, I think I’m seeing Carmelo Anthony out there on the court. I think I see him muscling in for a leaner from about 12 feet, with a bunch of bodies sliding in for maybe a rebound. But no such luck. I’m at the Democratic Convention, not at a Denver Nuggets basketball game, and the people down there and around and above me aren’t playing ball but Convention Politics, I guess you could call it. As I remember from watching the Democrats in Boston four years ago, they do this real well, even if they go on to lose on Election Day. Just now they’ve been playing all kinds of music that your scribe doesn’t know the words to. They’ve swung posters on behalf of the change we’ve been waiting for, and they’ve been waiving American flags. Not German flags, mind you, and not flags of the world, for our fellow citizens of the world. This place is just now hearing from Ted Kennedy, this being the night of special tribute to him, and the crowd is excited, it’s up. Convention Politics is almost better (though here Barack might disagree) than a basketball game.

but I'm not. As I type, Wolf Blitzer is profusely praising Michelle Obama's as yet undelivered speech. He assures us it is very moving.

Does that mean we needn't watch it?

From the Politico, “Obama Preps in Solitude for Speech” by Carrie Budoff Brown

Behold! The most egregious Obama puff piece of the day! As you read, you’ll almost hear echoes of Ms. Budoff Brown chanting “O-ba-ma!” while she worked the keyboard.

CHICAGO — For three days in a row, Barack Obama traded his Hyde Park home for a solitary Park Hyatt hotel room.

He needed space to think, on his own. With no aides and a small security detail, he put his pencil to his legal pad and worked on a nomination acceptance speech that pundits will inevitably compare to the 2004 Democratic National Convention address that catapulted him into political stardom.

Facing expectations much higher this time around, Obama was ensconced inside the downtown luxury hotel — alone, according to aides — preparing for the biggest speech of his career. He worked on it for 20 hours, until past midnight each day…

He has collaborated with speechwriters and top aides, but with many of them in Denver already, Obama has worked alone at the hotel, Psaki said.

The late-night sessions shed light on the meticulous preparations that are going into the speech. Expectations will undoutedly (sic) build this week as the media revisits Obama's 2004 convention performance and speculate about the impact of this year's address…

“This speech requires more thought, more preparation,” Obama told the Chicago Tribune in an interview published Saturday. “I’m not focused on trying to match the soaring rhetoric or levels of excitement that we had four years ago. This is much more a yeoman-like task of making the case for my presidency.”

First off, remember what I said a while ago about Obama donors demanding a refund? Here’s what your money, dear Obama donor, is going towards - Obama’s mansion isn’t sufficiently comfortable for him, so you have to put him up in a luxury hotel a few miles away so he can properly think.

On a more substantive note, Obama’s concluding quote reveals how he has painted himself into a corner. He excels at the vague stem-winders that rev up the audience. But stung by the celebrity charge, he knows he has to offer more substance. Yet if he does an updated version of Bill Clinton endlessly prattling on about midnight basketball, he’ll disappoint even his most devoted acolytes. (Okay, his most devoted acolytes will never find him disappointing, but you get my drift.)

So what does Obama do? He’s talking about making a “yeoman-like” case for his presidency, which sounds like he intends to show more seriousness and specificity than he typically does at these big addresses. And yet he long ago committed to delivering this yeoman-like speech in a 75,000 seat football stadium and just committed to having Jon Bon Jovi precede him on the stage and Bruce Springsteen follow him. I love Jersey rock as much as the next guy, but this presentation doesn’t bespeak great seriousness.

The Obama campaign realizes its old narrative of hope/change/new politics has grown stale. But it apparently doesn’t quite know how to put it out to pasture.

Sitting in the NPR broadcast booth at Pepsi arena, looking down at the podium, you are struck at how bright, crisp, and arresting the speaker's dais is. Reports are that the major news networks poured millions into making the DNC widescreen-plasma worthy. The money paid off. Even to the naked eye, high above the convention floor, this is the first HD convention.

Of course, Barack Obama won't accept the nomination here. He'll give his major speech at Invesco Field at Mile High. And the set there, I hear, isn't quite as widescreen-plasma worthy.

In a largely overlooked respect, Biden is the perfect choice for Obama to have made. They both believe that judges may enforce rights not found in the text or history of the Constitution. Biden made plain his belief in unenumerated rights jurisprudence (this is some fancy law language) in 1987 when, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he presided over the confirmation hearing of Judge Robert Bork. Biden opened the hearings by saying that he had rights simply because he existed, the implication being that judges should enforce those unstated rights. Biden made this the theme of the hearings, and he repeated the point during the full Senate debate over the nomination. “I believe I have rights because I exist, in spite of my government, not because of my government,'' he said. ''Judge Bork believes that rights flow from the majority through the Constitution to individuals, a notion I reject.'' That was a caricature of Bork’s actual position, but the “I have rights because I exist that are judicially enforceable” is not a parody of Biden’s position—or Obama’s. Expect Biden to take the lead on judicial selection, and don’t be surprised if he reprises his rights talk.

For my story in this week’s issue, “The Faith-Based Campaign,” there were some details about Saddleback Church that I was not able to use, for space reasons, but may be of interest especially to people wanting to know more about this high-profile church:

Saddleback is, by intention, “a seeker-friendly” place (as Warren’s spokesman Larry Ross described it to me.) The sermons or “messages” are laden with Scripture but easily digestible. The outline that Warren preaches from is made available to everyone who walks in. And because people like adult contemporary music--Warren has praised it as “a universal style that can be heard in every country in the world”-- traditional hymns have yielded to adult contemporary’s Christian version and thus often to “praise” and “worship” songs.

This music tends to use simple, repetitive lyrics, and it relies, at many other churches in addition to Saddleback, on a guitarist and back-up band and small choir. You can trace the music back to the Jesus Movement. It began migrating into youth ministries in the 1970s. Warren was familiar with it long ago, having served as a youth minister before he started Saddleback. According to Ross, Warren has recently expressed interest in rotating in some of the classic hymns, like Luther’s great work, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” (imagine seeing those words on one of Saddleback’s Jumbotrons) and “Great Is Thy Faithfulness.” Warren wants to make sure the rising generation doesn’t grow up “without the legacy of the hymns we grew up with up.” (I’m quoting Ross again).

During the church service I reported on, what was especially striking was that Warren didn’t preach his sermon in its entirety, but he broke it up with music. Thus, he preached the first point of his three-point message, taking eight minutes, and then his musicians led in song, one that thematically fit the first point and was about three minutes long. Warren then resumed with his second point, again going for about eight minutes, and then the musicians came back with an appropriate song, again for about three minutes. When they finished, Warren then preached his third point, which took him about twelve minutes.

This ABABA pattern is Warren’s “signature style,” Ross told me. It’s “a way of reinforcing the message so that people get it. And it’s reaching out to the younger generation, who are used to getting their news in modular ways.” Warren often preaches at greater length than he did the Sunday I visited--upwards of an hour. But those sermons, too, come out in modules.

It comes from Dave Barry: "I'll be on hand to report all the convention news developments to you from Denver as I think them up. Then next week I'll head to Minnesota or possibly Wisconsin and do the same from the Republican convention."

A sample from his first dispatch:

It's hard to blame Sen. Clinton for being bitter. Here she is, the smartest human ever, PLUS she spent all those years standing loyally behind Bill Clinton wearing uncomfortable panty hose (I mean that Hillary was, not Bill) (although there are rumors), PLUS she went to the trouble and expense of acquiring a legal residence in New York state so she could be a senator from there, PLUS she assembled a team of nuclear-physicist-grade genius political advisers, PLUS she spent years going around to every dirtbag community in America explaining in detail her 23-point policy solutions for every single problem facing the nation including soybean blight. And after all that, she loses the nomination to a guy who has roughly the same amount of executive governmental experience as Hannah Montana. Hillary is like, "Are you KIDDING me?"

The man is a national treasure. No joke.

Denver
Four years ago, the gals at Emily's List refused to let Matt Labash cover their big event in Boston because no boys were allowed. Today the press people at Emily's List told me that they wouldn't be able to give me a credential for tomorrow's event where they're bringing Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama onto the stage together. This time Emily's List says it's because of space constraints, but I think we all know what that's code for.

When will the discrimination end?

(Earlier today I reported on Hillary's Denver events and her nuanced support for Barack Obama. Read it here.)

Does irrational Obama hatred drive die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters--known as PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass)--to vote for John McCain? Here's what one life-long Democratic voter tells Ezra Klein in Denver:

Thirty-five years I voted Democrat, I'm voting for John McCain. I'd rather have four years of John McCain and the same and have a chance that Hillary will come back and win than have Barack Obama, who talked about change and hope with no substance. I'd just rather have McCain in. I think we have a better chance with McCain on terrorism.

Note that this voter says that a McCain victory ensures a "chance that Hillary will come back and win". If Obama loses the election, Hillary is the likely 2012 nominee, with a very good chance of winning the general election. If Obama wins, Hillary's next chance to run for president would be 2016. Then, at age 69, she would potentially face the very difficult challenge that John McCain does right now--retaining the White House for a party's third consecutive term. And who knows whether the Democrats might want a fresher face eight years from now.

Sounds like rational hatred.

What was the biggest news story between August 11 and August 17? Not the Olympics. Not John Edwards's admission of an affair. Not the campaign. Not even the showdown between McCain and Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback church. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, it was Russia's invasion of Georgia, an event of global significance that arguably resonated even in Barack Obama's vice presidential selection.

Meanwhile, the Project reports that another growing international crisis -- political turmoil in nuclear-armed Pakistan -- has garnered only 1 percent of total news coverage in 2008.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Don Fowler told Adam Nagourney: "“I have a lot of doubts that this convention is going to be as persuasive as it should be because they’ve got this damn thing with Hillary ... I love Hillary. I was for her. But this is the worst political decision I could imagine. This is supposed to be an Obama celebration. You’re going to get the nomination of someone who came very close to winning and you’re going to get a lot of people in there cheering and hollering and some people booing.”

Gallup shows the race tied at 45-45, meaning Obama has gotten no bounce from his selection of garrulous gaffe machine Joe Biden as his running mate. Or does it? Reports the pollster:

The latest update includes two days of interviewing following Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, and neither day showed an improved performance for Obama. Thus, Obama does not appear to have gotten the same type of immediate "vice presidential bounce" as have presidential candidates in recent years. That could reflect a somewhat muted national response to the Biden selection, or competition for the nation's attention with the Olympics.

Truthfully, I think Gallup’s logic is upside down. Assuming America was too distracted by the Olympics to devote sufficient attention to Joe Biden’s elevation to the Democratic ticket, that means the country has yet to fully weigh the Biden factor. Advantage McCain! Just wait until the country gets a load of Joe Biden. McCain could get a ten point bounce!

By the way, the fact that most of the country had never heard of Joe Biden prior to Saturday should provide sobering evidence to we political junkies regarding just how much we differ from our fellow, normal citizens. To some of us, the chatty son of Welsh coal miners has been a political fixture for decades. Our more fortunate fellow citizens wouldn’t recognize Biden if they tripped over his hair plugs.

At least it was that way for them before Saturday. Mark my words - they will henceforth forever rue their loss of innocence.

Were the 2008 Beijing Olympics a "victory for China," as the headline on this front-page Washington Post story claims? That probably depends on, um, what the definition of "victory" is. China won more gold medals than any other country. The games demonstrated China's new economic power and ability to coordinate not one but two gigantic propaganda displays. But China did nothing to allay the concerns of Americans, and some American policymakers, about its "peaceful rise." Here's John F. Burns:

In weighing my own wonderment at all this, and what it has conveyed of the power and confidence of the new China, I’ve reproached myself often enough for credulity. In truth, some of the worst instincts of the old China have poked through the dazzle, most egregiously in the substitution of the pretty little girl in a red dress, and a voice-over, for the 7-year-old whose voice, but not her uneven teeth, met the Politburo’s standards. Then there was the female dancer paralyzed in a fall during rehearsals for the opening ceremony, whose tragedy was suppressed lest it, too, spoil the harmony of the opening night.

Burns also calls attention to

the dark underside of Chinese life that has changed little since Mao — the suppression of minority rights in Tibet and Xinjiang; the archipelago of labor camps, with perhaps two million prisoners; and other outrages, like the unspeakable trade in human organs that, at least in some cases, are suspected of having been taken from executed prisoners.

Little of this has featured, at least with much prominence, in Western coverage of the Games. Just as the Chinese leaders gambled, the 20,000 journalists accredited to the Games have marched onto the front pages of the world’s newspapers and into the television newscasts with stories of Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt and other astonishing athletes.

It's a credit to Burns's news organization that it covered China's treatment of those Chinese brave enough to apply for applications to protest at the Olympics. (The government detained them.) The games are over, and the show moves on to London in 2012. But the questions surrounding Beijing's ability to peacefully and responsibly join the liberal international order will endure for a long time to come.

Not that the Obama campaign proactively seeks out my advice, but if I were a neophyte candidate looking to make the transition from celebrity to serious leader, I would forego set pieces like this:

Denver's Rocky Mountain News reports on its site today, "The Jersey boys are coming, and we ain't talking about Frankie Valli. The Boss and Bon Jovi are ready to perform."

Springsteen's people have not confirmed, but the Rocky notes, "Multiple sources confirmed to the Rocky that Jon Bon Jovi will fly in to perform two acoustic songs before Sen. Barack Obama gives his acceptance speech at Invesco Field on Thursday. After the speech, Bruce Springsteen will close out the night, presumably solo acoustic (E Street Band member Nils Lofgren told the Rocky last week that the band wouldn't be with Springsteen in Denver)."

Serving as the opening act for the Boss is a sure way for Obama to assuage doubts that he’s not just a celebrity but a serious political presence.

Denver
Hillary Clinton wasn't invited to address the DNC's Hispanic Caucus until early this morning. Nevertheless, she showed up at the Colorado Convention Center shortly after 10:30 for her first public talk to convention goers about Barack Obama. It was revealing in both what she did and did not say.

Clinton was greeted like a conquering hero by the 300 or so people in attendance. They gave her a standing ovation, applause and "Hillary! Hillary!" chants for nearly a minute when she took to the podium.

She began by telling the crowd that "I came here to say thank you." She said that the support of Latinos made a difference from Nevada to Puerto Rico. A minute and a half into her remarks she said that "We come together here in Denver, the Mile High City, to pledge our support and to unify behind the next president of the United States, Barack Obama."

After that big applause line, she thanked many of the prominent Hispanic supporters of her campaign, and tipped her hat to two Hispanic congressional candidates. And then she moved on to talk about the many causes she and the Hispanic caucus have fought for together: farm workers, immigration reform, healthcare reform. She explained that she traveled to the barrios and the border and knows how important it is to go back to creating good jobs for Americans.

Then Clinton returned to the subject of Obama. "On any issue that matters to you, we must have a Democratic president," she said. And later, "I know with all my heart that we cannot afford four more years of the same failed policies."

"I am asking you, those of you who supported me--I will be forever grateful--to work as hard for Barack Obama as you would for me." This line garnered big applause and another round of "Hillary!" chanting.

Clinton then addressed the McCain ad "Passed Over," which features her saying unflattering things about Obama. "They're running ads with words from me and words from Joe Biden . . . well I have seen those ads and here's what I have to say, 'I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message.'" (One expects to hear some version of this line during her primetime speech tomorrow.)

Finally, Clinton closed by saying that "We were not just fighting to elect a particular person president. We were fighting to take our country back."

All of this suggests that Clinton is playing a subtle game. She is going to say the right things about unity for the delegates and convention-goers and isn't going to act out. And for these professional Democrats, hearing Clinton say that she supports Obama will be a relief. One suspects that this speech will be counted as a victory for Obama.

Yet notice that Clinton's support extends only so far as arguing that it's important to have a Democrat elected president. She had nothing positive to say about Obama himself--not a single line of praise for him as a person or a candidate. There were no words of reassurance that he is, in fact, ready to lead or that he can be trusted on any particular issues. Even her remark about the McCain ad is weak tea: She nominally renounced the ad by saying that she doesn't approve the message. But she declined to repudiate any of the specific charges she makes about Obama in the ad.

The Democratic convention has not even begun, and already Barack Obama is in danger of losing it to the Clintons. Patrick Ruffini:

The Clinton chatter is dominant. The Clintons will get two nights in Denver -- Hillary Tuesday, and Bill Wednesday. The coverage on the cables so far this morning has been all about the Clintons. High-profile Clinton surrogates complaining about the lack of VP vetting with the RNC/McCain capitalizing, Bill being upset about his speech topic, Hillary jerking her delegates around, effectively telling them "Nevermind" after making a show about the "catharsis" of the roll call a couple of weeks ago. If the Clintons really wanted to screw with Obama's chances, setting up Hillary 2012, this would be the week to do it. And this is what they seem to be doing.

A lot of this might have been prevented had Obama gone with Clinton for his vice presidential choice rather than Biden. He didn't, of course. And now he's in danger of letting the Clintons turn the story of the convention into the kind of story they like best: one that is all about them.

Sean Wilentz, the Democratic party's house historian, likens his party's presidential nominee to none other than Jimmy Carter. And he doesn't mean it as a compliment:

Obama's liberal alternative to the post-Bush GOP to date has much in common with Carter's post-Watergate liberalism. Rejecting "politics as usual," attacking "Washington" as the problem, promising to heal the breaches and hurts caused by partisan political polarization, pledging to break the grip that lobbyists and special interests hold over the national government, wearing his Christian faith on his sleeve as a key to his mind, heart and soul—in all of these ways, Obama resembles Jimmy Carter more than he does any other Democratic president in living memory.

In other ways, Obama's liberal vision appears clouded, uncertain and even contradictory. During his four years in Washington, he has compiled one of the most predictably liberal voting records in the Senate—yet he presents himself as an advocate of bipartisanship and ideological flexibility. He has offered himself as the tribune of sweeping change—yet he also proclaims national unity, as if transformation can come without struggle. He has emerged as the champion of a new, post-racial politics, even though he has only grudgingly separated himself from his pastor of 20 years, who every week preached a gospel of "black liberation theology" that has everything to do with racial politics.

Wilentz supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. What's that about "party unity" again?

In 2006 Americans enjoyed their first rise in average income since 2000. The problem is that inflation threatens to wipe out these fragile and slight gains.

Obama's tax plan features a middle class tax cut (while raising taxes on more or less everyone and everything else). McCain wants broad-based tax reduction, but so far lacks a middle-class tax plan that could counter Obama's. This is a weakness in his candidacy, and one that he would be wise to address at next week's GOP convention in St. Paul.

David Frum's analysis of Obama's Biden pick is worth your time. Frum writes: "If Obama had felt confident, he would have picked Tim Kaine. Now, though, a month of bad polls have taken their toll, and Obama is acting defensively and protectively."

Frum makes several good points, but the one that resonates the most is this: The line on Biden is that his roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania, will help Obama connect with the fabled "working-class whites" who so far are not supporting the Illinois senator. Frum points out that Obama, as the head of a party that has won Pennsylvania in the last four presidential elections, shouldn't be worried about the Keystone State at all. And yet it seems he is. By picking Kaine or Bayh, Obama would've been attempting to expand the geographical reach of the Democratic party. He didn't do that, though. Which suggests the Obama campaign may be worried about Obama's appeal in places normally open to Democratic presidential candidates.

Kudos to author Matt Bai for writing this piece in today's Times. Some liberals are already beginning to assert that racism, not rational policy disagreement or unease with the candidate's youth and inexperience, will lead to Barack Obama's defeat in November. Bai calls this line of argument what it is: hogwash. Here's Bai:

While it’s entirely possible that Mr. Obama’s race is costing him some support, it’s also true that the electorate that voted in the last two presidential elections was almost symmetrically divided between the two parties. It would defy the laws of politics if, at this early stage of the campaign, moderate Republicans and conservative independents were to reject Mr. McCain (a candidate many of them preferred back in 2000) simply because they don’t like George W. Bush.

Second, Mr. Obama faces genuine obstacles that are more salient than skin color. By any historical measure, he has remarkably little governing experience and almost none in foreign policy. And he represents not only a racial milestone in American life, but also a stark generational shift. It’s hard to extricate these things from Obama’s blackness. (If older white voters recoiled at Mr. Obama when he exchanged a fist-bump with his wife, were they reacting to his youth or to his race?) There are legitimate reasons that some older white voters might reserve judgment on Mr. Obama without being closet racists.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

As Democrats gather in Denver, commentators are starting to tire of Barack Obama's "change" mantra. Paul Krugman devotes today's column to the need for Obama to attack John McCain. Joe Klein worries that Obama is failing "to define his opponent" and failing, "in all but the most amorphous ways, to define himself." Republican strategist Mike Murphy writes that "many of the old-school party regulars now assigned to loyally wave HOPE and CHANGE signs for the TV cameras in Denver would dearly love to see Obama switch out some of his 'together we can' endive salad for a big populist pile of economic red meat."

Last week E.J. Dionne wrote that many Democrats worry Obama lacks "a compelling narrative about how Americans who now feel economically insecure will find their way toward greater confidence." And in an excellent piece in yesterday's New York Times Magazine, David Leonhardt writes, Obama "still hasn’t quite figured out how to sell it. For all his skills as a storyteller and a speaker, he has not settled on a compelling message about how to put the economy on the right path."

Clearly the political class is tiring of Obama's message of "hope and change." But how about the voters? Most will just begin to tune into this election this week. But the latest poll numbers suggest that, for those who have been paying attention, the ch-ch-ch-changes message isn't gaining any traction either.

From the New York Times, “A Joe of His Own” by Bill Kristol

In his weekly Times column, the Boss tries to analytically work out what a McCain/Lieberman ticket would mean to the presidential race and the country:

Now as a matter of governance, there’s no reason to think this would much matter. McCain has made clear his will be a pro-life administration. And as a one-off, quasi-national-unity ticket, with Lieberman renouncing any further ambition to run for the presidency, a McCain-Lieberman administration wouldn’t threaten the continuance of the G.O.P. as a pro-life party. In other areas, no one seriously thinks the policies of a McCain-Lieberman administration would be appreciably different from those, say, of a McCain-Pawlenty administration.

Would McCain-Lieberman have a better prospect of winning than the more conventional alternatives? If they could get over the early hurdles of a messy convention and an awful lot of conservative angst and anger, I’ve come to think so.

Obama and Biden will try to frame the presidential race as a normal Democratic-Republican choice. If they can do that, they should win. That would be far more difficult against a McCain-Lieberman ticket. The charge that McCain would merely mean a third Bush term would also tend to fall flat. And an unorthodox “country first” Lieberman selection would reinforce what has been attractive about McCain, and what has allowed him to run ahead of — though not yet enough ahead of — the generic Republican ballot.

A Lieberman pick should help with ticket splitters. But can such a ticket hold the support of pro-lifers, conservatives and Republicans? If you’re conscientiously pro-life, you will have reservations about a pro-abortion-rights V.P. If you’re a proud conservative, Lieberman hasn’t been one. If you’re a loyal Republican, you’d much prefer someone from within the ranks.

But if you’re pro-life, conservative and/or Republican, you certainly don’t want Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running the country. If a McCain-Lieberman ticket is the best way to thwart that prospect, you could probably learn to live with it — even perhaps to like it.

As most people here know, I’m a big admirer of Mitt Romney’s. But my ranking concern regarding Romney potentially joining the ticket has always been whether or not his presence would increase the likelihood of a Republican victory in November. Shouldn’t a conversation about the Lieberman option center on the same concern? With a Democrat controlled congress and a scandalously unqualified Democratic nominee, this election has high stakes.

Without wading into the thickets of a tiresome Romney vs. Pawlenty vs. Lieberman vs. Whitman debate, I’m a little perplexed over why the Lieberman option has provoked such a dismaying ratio between analysis and hysteria. Kristol’s column today is a remedy to that. It’s not a case for Lieberman, but rather an analysis of what Lieberman joining the ticket could mean. It’s an intellectual rather than emotional response to an important issue. As the kids frequently say in the blogosphere, more please.

Denver
Obama Messiah is a great clearinghouse for Obama worship. There's the usual iconography. But there's also great hidden stuff, like a link to this Denver yoga center which is offering a special class called "OmBama--Yes We Can." Here's the description:

OMbama Yoga classes! Enjoy these radically inspiring all level yoga classes of incredible, heartfelt practices for change! Join us for an eclectic and joyful practice as we celebrate the upcoming election and the opportunity of participating in the political process with one another and invoking the spirit of Obama's own phrase, YES WE CAN! The instructors who will be leading these practices will be sharing their unique styles and collaborating with one another to inspire and serve and support you in this election year!

There's also this striking compilation of Obama magazine covers:

And finally, there's a call for an Obama salute at the Invesco Revelation on Thursday. I hope all all 75,000 attendees do the salute while they chant "O-bam-a! O-bam-a!" It'll make for another great McCain ad.

In the Democratic presidential debate of July 23, 2007, Joe Biden took some heat from Second Amendment advocates for his condescending attitude toward a gun owner. Less widely noticed was Biden's eagerness to claim credit for writing the assault weapons ban:

But as I pointed out elsewhere at the time, Biden didn't write the assault weapons ban -- neither the one that was signed into law by President Clinton, nor the first one introduced in Congress. Multiple searches of the Congressional legislative database Thomas suggest that Howard Berman was the first Member of Congress to introduce the assault weapons ban -- on January 27, 1989. Biden introduced his assault weapons ban in November 1989, after dozens of other Members of Congress had introduced their own copycat bills.

You’ll pardon me for having some confusion over the current state of Democratic thinking regarding multiple home ownership. In 2004, the Democratic standard bearer owned multiple houses, and yet the party figured his wartime valor trumped that purported stain. Present-day secular saint Al Gore has parlayed his lucrative carbon offset racket into a lifestyle worthy of a 21st century Sun King. The left doesn’t seem to mind. And yet John McCain’s wealth is somehow a scandal?

I must question how genuinely scandalized the Democrats are by McCain’s wealth. Tonight, the Democrats will be honoring Ted Kennedy. Like McCain, Kennedy enjoys tremendous wealth. Also like McCain, the wealth that Kennedy enjoys has nothing to do with any personal industry he has shown. Of course, Kennedy’ wealth should in no way disqualify him from the honors he’ll receive tonight.

The Kennedy family actually pioneered a devastating response to the charge that their wealth made them somehow unfit to serve the common man. “It’s not where you come from,” they would say, “but where you stand.” Because the Kennedys never stood with the “let them eat cake” school of the super-rich, their riches weren’t a problem. While Ted Kennedy never personally experienced the thrill of having a mortgage payment that he couldn’t afford to pay, that lack of life experience didn’t disqualify him from serving such people. It was obvious that he sympathized with them and would do everything he could to help them.

The fact is, most Americans don’t resent the wealth of others. Indeed, in spite of the persistent attempt of American liberals to stigmatize wealth, most Americans have decided to ignore the protests of their intellectual betters. Ordinary people try to accumulate as much wealth as possible. When the typical American hears about someone owning seven homes, most think, “I wish I did, too.” The rest think, “I wish owned eight.” Even saintly figures such as Barack Obama endeavor to make a lot of money and enjoy the material benefits that their financial successes allow.

There are several problems with the attack on McCain’s seven houses. And when I say “problems,” I don’t mean just logical problems but also political problems. In order to make a class resentment case against a wealthy politician, you have to make two points: First, you have to establish the candidate’s great wealth. Next, and this is the critical step, you have to show that the candidate’s wealth has separated him from the common man.

This is a tough case to make against McCain because of his life story. While it makes lefty heads pop off every time McCain loyalists point to his military service, McCain shared in the greatest challenges that his generation faced. As the left has often pointed out with evident glee, this was not the case with many wealthy Republican office-seekers who came of age in the Vietnam era.

And then there are the optics of John McCain himself. If McCain spends a lot of money on his wardrobe, it doesn’t show. He may wear $550 loafers, but (and I say this respectfully), he still manages to look extremely frumpy. He doesn’t wind-surf or snow-board. Having been laid as low in his life as he was in Vietnam, McCain just doesn’t come across as the kind of rich guy who floats above the concerns of the ordinary citizen.

So what are the Democrats left with? They’re left complaining that McCain has too much wealth. And they’re left with a guy who made $4 million last year to push that case. Honestly, if they were really intent on pursuing the class warfare angle, surely they could have come up with a cleaner narrative.

Then there’s the additional problem that this will strike most Americans as a petty and irrelevant attack. Over the past 70 years, America has had a lot of rich presidents. FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan and both Bushes were all men of means. In each race, their opponents tried to use their wealth as a cudgel to bludgeon them with. And it never worked.

Over the weekend, Michael Goldfarb suggested that the 3 A.M. Saturday morning text message announcing Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate was a dig at Hillary and her 3 A.M. phone call ad. Jonah Goldberg and Allahpundit were skeptical that Obama would do something so stupid. But based on this report from the Washington Post's Trail blog, it seems that the 3 A.M. timing was intentional:

The Obama campaign, which declined to say how many texts it sent around 3 a.m. today, said everything went according to plan. ... news organizations confirmed around 1 a.m. today that Obama had settled on Biden. The announcement was sent about two hours later -- apparently with no glitches, said Kevin Bertman of Distributive Networks, the District-based mobile company hired by the campaign to send its texts.

If the Obama campaign was scrambling to respond to news reports that Biden was the VP nominee, it doesn't make any sense why the text didn't go out at 1 A.M. or even 11 P.M., when Jake Tapper reported that the Secret Service had been dispatched to protect Biden.

From a logistical standpoint, it made sense to wait as long as possible to send out the text in order to get as many people to sign up as possible. Come November those cell phone numbers are going to a very effective means to get out the (lazy and forgetful) youth vote. And then, Team Obama thinks, why not make a symbolic statement that Joe Biden is ready to lead by sending it out at 3 A.M.?

For anyone doubting that the Obama campaign could be so oblivious about how Hillary supporters would interpret the 3 A.M. text, remember this is the campaign that made it's own presidential seal, and, when Obama couldn't speak at the Brandenburg Gate, the venue they settled on was a monument dedicated to Prussian militarism and Nazism.

It's only Day 1 of the Democratic Convention, and there's already drama for Barack Obama.

First, things aren't looking so certain in the polls. CNN reports that the race is a "dead heat": "In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator." Don Surber explains, "This month, after his rock star world tour before 200,000 people in Berlin--and after picking as his running mate Democratic Sen. Joe Biden--Obama is now tied with McCain." What happened?

Jules Crittenden says, "Obama-Biden ‘08 going nowhere fast. Post-announcement poll shows Biden choice sucking whatever life was left out of Obama’s campaign." Hot Air's Ed Morrissey cites a Rasmussen poll that says only 39 percent think Biden was the right choice: "Not only has Biden not helped Obama, it looks like he’s actually damaging the ticket with his addition. He certainly hasn’t added any enthusiasm to the Democratic offering."

Meanwhile, there are signs of "Democratic disunity," says Townhall's Amanda Carpenter. The Politico reports tensions between the Clinton and Obama camps, and the Washington Times reports that some Hillary supporters are not too happy that she wasn't even vetted for the VP slot.

At Contentions, Jennifer Rubin says, "The real Hillary supporters are mad. Obama’s decision to put forth absolutely no effort to vet her (would an hour meeting and a request for documents have killed them?), after suggesting she would be on anyone’s short list, stings." Hot Air's Allahpundit retorts, "how insane it is that nominees have to contest 50 grueling primaries/caucuses to win the nomination but the next in line to the throne if they’re elected is chosen purely on their own say so. If the wisdom of Democratic voters is trustworthy enough to pick the top half of the ticket (superdelegates notwithstanding), why isn’t it trustworthy enough to pick the bottom half?" And although she is planning to release her delegates on Wednesday, Allahpundit also notes that a large percentage are "planning to go PUMA" (Party Unity, My Ass!, for the uninitiated).

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat says, "Obama did not optimize his chances for winning in November when he chose not to choose Hillary Clinton. All the whining and complaining about PUMAS is not going to help that." It's going to be an interesting week!

Senator Joe Biden’s selection as the Vice Presidential nominee creates a short-term challenge for the Obama campaign: how to manage disgruntled Clinton supporters at the convention. Disappointment among some women voters, of course, could plague the Illinois Senator for the duration of the campaign. As J.P. Green noted this weekend at the Democratic Strategist

Perhaps the toughest problem posed by the Biden choice is winning the votes of women who are disappointed that a woman was not selected.

In Denver, some Clinton fans promise a protest, so the presumptive Democratic nominee’s team must keep the “Hillary was scorned comments” to a minimum.

Modern conventions serve as an extended party infomercial. Behind the scenes, planners meticulously orchestrate details of speeches and floor demonstrations down to the second. They pitch surrogates with tightly controlled “message of the day” talking points. Coordinating these made-for-TV events means starting the top speakers in prime time, ensuring they end precisely at 11:00 p.m. Eastern (so talking head pundits can’t filter the message), and demonstrating wild enthusiasm on the floor at just the right moments.

The party nominee’s campaign staff also organizes elaborate whip teams to manage the convention floor – like getting the drunk delegate with the weird hat out of camera range. Or more to the point for this convention, making sure the weeping Hillary supporters don’t talk to reporters. These convention “whip operations” have been necessary parts of both Democratic and Republican party confabs in the age of television.

That’s why I found this Politico post intriguing:

Not only will the Obama campaign organize a convention whip team – but so will the Clinton campaign. But instead of trying to defeat the Illinois Senator, like Hillary did in the primaries, this group will try to avoid an outbreak of “irrational exuberance” from her supporters.

In an unusual move, Hillary Clinton's staff is creating a 40-member "whip team" at the Denver Democratic convention to ensure that her supporters don't engage in embarrassing anti-Obama demonstrations during the floor vote on her nomination, according to people familiar with the planning.
The team, which is being organized by longtime Clinton staffer Craig Smith, is working in conjunction with Obama's floor organizers to help foster the image of a unified front during a roll-call process Clinton herself has described as an emotional "catharsis" for her disappointed supporters.

Message to Hillary supporters: Keep the cowbells and kazoos in your hotel rooms.

HT: The Democratic Strategist

From Obamaweek, “A Liberal’s Lament” by Sean Wilentz

First, a little quiz – who said it?

“This year will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation's character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country. There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders.”

Jimmy Carter! But you probably knew that. After offering the obvious sad comparison, Wilentz goes on to point out:

In other ways, Obama's liberal vision appears clouded, uncertain and even contradictory. During his four years in Washington, he has compiled one of the most predictably liberal voting records in the Senate—yet he presents himself as an advocate of bipartisanship and ideological flexibility. He has offered himself as the tribune of sweeping change—yet he also proclaims national unity, as if transformation can come without struggle. He has emerged as the champion of a new, post-racial politics, even though he has only grudgingly separated himself from his pastor of 20 years, who every week preached a gospel of "black liberation theology" that has everything to do with racial politics.

I particularly liked this passage:

Liberal intellectuals have largely abdicated their responsibility to provide unblinking and rigorous analysis instead of paeans to Obama's image. Hardly any prominent liberal thinkers stepped forward to question Obama's rationalizations about his relationship with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Instead, they hailed his ever-changing self-justifications and sometimes tawdry logic—equating his own white grandmother's discomfort in the presence of a menacing stranger with Wright's hateful sermons—as worthy of the monumental addresses of Lincoln. Liberal intellectuals actually could have aided their candidate, while also doing their professional duty, by pressing him on his patently evasive accounts about various matters, such as his connections with the convicted wheeler-dealer Tony Rezko, or his more-than-informal ties to the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, including their years of association overseeing an expensive, high-profile, but fruitless public-school reform effort in Chicago. Instead, the intellectuals have failed Obama as well as their readers by branding such questioning as irrelevant, malicious or heretical.

Personal aside to Andrew Sullivan – I think he’s talking to you.

Denver
Well, those dull, superstitious Clinton voters are back. Here's the Philadelphia Inquirer's Dick Polman demanding that Bill and Hillary Clinton use the convention to put into their place those Clinton voters who still have reservations about Obama: "[I]t would greatly help the Democratic ticket if they deigned to educate Hillary's bitter-enders on the facts of life . . ."

Yet it seems possible that (1) the Hillary voters not yet in Obama's corner are not simply "bitter-enders"; (2) these Hillary voters may actually have their own, valid reasons for not yet supporting Obama; and (3) that perhaps the Clintons merely telling them "the facts of life" will not be enough to move them because of (1) and (2).

Of course, all that would assume these voters are rational actors and not automatons, a possibility Polman seems to discount.

Exit question: If Hillary had won the nomination and some of Obama's core supporters refused to come home to the Democratic ticket--as many Democrats openly worried might happen--would it be permissible to demand that they be "educated" about "the facts of life"?

Denver
So Hillary Clinton gets about 18 million votes in 2008, and isn’t even considered for--she apparently isn’t even given the courtesy of being consulted--the vice presidential pick. Joe Biden manages to persuade a few thousand (if that) Iowans to support him. And Barack Obama selects Biden? Normally, if the VP pick came from that year’s presidential field, it's the runner-up (Kerry-Edwards in 2004, Reagan-Bush in 1980, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956). (Lyndon Johnson in 1960 hadn’t entered the primaries.) And Biden wasn’t even the third most successful candidate this year (hi, John Edwards!), or fourth (Bill Richardson, I suppose), or fifth (Dennis Kucinich!).

What’s more, Biden and Hillary have basically comparable foreign policy “experience” (such as it is in either case). Nor is Biden clearly more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than Hillary. And they have pretty similar foreign policy views. So no advantage to Biden there. And, unlike Jack Reed, for example, Biden didn’t serve in the military. So no advantage over Hillary there. Nor does he outshine her in executive experience (unlike Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius)--neither Biden nor Hillary has any.

Also, if the VP is supposed to handle the Democrats’ populist economic message: after the last few months of the primary campaign, it would be hard to say Hillary hasn’t proven herself an awfully good carrier of that message. And Hillary can perform the attacking functions of the VP nominee as well as Biden.

Will the Democratic party, which is committed (to say the least) to gender equity, and which in fact has a 50 percent quota for female delegates, accept Obama’s imposition of a glass ceiling at its convention?

A modest suggestion to my justifiably outraged Democratic friends: Hillary’s name should be placed in nomination not for the presidency (Obama won that more or less fair and square)--but for the vice presidency. It would be an interesting roll call vote.

Patrick Ruffini provides the audio of Biden's infamous statement that Barack Obama is "the first sort of mainstream African-American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean, and a nice-looking guy."

Ruffini also dredges up this priceless quote in response to Biden's, um, inarticulateness, from Markos Moulitsas: "Really, if we live in a just world, this will be the end of Joe Biden’s political career."

Via Jennifer Rubin, John McCain devotes his entire weekly radio address to criticizing Barack Obama's extremism on abortion, including Obama's vote on the born-alive bill (see the section in bold):

The week began with a debate of sorts between Senator Obama and me at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. In case you missed it, the discussion yielded the line of the week, and maybe even of the campaign, when Pastor Rick Warren asked my opponent a very serious question. He wanted to know at what point, in my opponent's view, does a baby have human rights? Senator Obama thought about it for a moment, and came back with the reply that the question was, quote, "above my pay grade."

Here was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, asked for his position on one of the central moral and legal questions of our time, and this was the best he could offer: It's above his pay grade. He went on to assure his interviewer that there is a, quote, "moral and ethical element to this issue." Americans expect more of their leaders.

There seems to be a pattern here in my opponent's approach to many hard issues. Whether it's the surge in Iraq that has brought us near to victory, or the issue of campaign reform, or the question of offshore drilling, Senator Obama's speeches can be impressive. But when it's time for straight answers, clear conviction, and decisive action, suddenly all of these responsibilities are -- well, as he puts it, "above my pay grade." As mottos of leadership go, it doesn't exactly have the ring of "the buck stops here."

Often, too, Senator Obama's carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting "present" on the Senate floor.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions -- living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, "previable." This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law, and Barack Obama voted against it.

At Saddleback, he assured a reporter that he'd have voted "yes" on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, "lying" about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn't withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama's campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.

For a man who talks so often about "hope," Senator Obama doesn't offer much of it in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. His extreme advocacy in favor of partial birth abortion and his refusal to provide medical care for babies surviving abortion should be of grave concern to reasonable people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. There is a growing consensus in America that we need to overcome narrow partisanship on this issue for both women in need and the unborn. We need more of the compassion and moral idealism that my opponent's own party, at its best, once stood for. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.

Upholding these principles, and bringing Americans together on the side of life, is the work of leadership. And I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade. Thanks for listening.

Andrew Ferguson wrote a great send-up of Joe Biden's book (among other campaign books) in the THE WEEKLY STANDARD last December.

[Biden] has published Promises to Keep, a nearly flawless specimen of the traditional campaign book--as perfect as the whitened teeth and Photoshop-blue eyes
that gleam from the portrait on the cover.

What does a discerning reader learn from Biden's book that we didn't already know? Perhaps not much, if you're a regular watcher of C-SPAN or a longtime resident of Delaware. But there is something unforgettable about watching the man emerge on the page. His legendary self-regard becomes more impressive when the reader sees it in typescript, undistracted by the smile and the hair plugs. Biden quotes at great length from letters of recommendation he received as a young man, when far-sighted professors wrote movingly of his "sharp and incisive intellect" and his "highly developed sense of responsibility." These qualities have proved to be more of a burden than you might think, Biden admits. "I've made life difficult for myself," he writes, "by putting intellectual consistency and personal principle above expediency."

Yes, many Biden fans might tag these as the greatest of his gifts. Biden himself isn't so sure. After a little hemming and hawing--is it his intelligence that he most admires, or his commitment to principle, or his insistence on calling 'em as he sees 'em, or what?--he decides that his greatest personal and political virtue is probably his integrity. Tough call. But his wife seems to agree. He recounts one difficult episode in which she said as much. "Of all the things to attack you on," she said, almost in tears. "Your integrity?"

This lachrymose moment came during Biden's aborted presidential campaign in 1988, when reporters discovered several instances of plagiarism in his campaign speeches and in his law school record. Biden rehearses the episode in tormenting, if selective, detail, and true to campaign-book form, his account serves as the emotional center of the book. The memoir of every presidential candidate must describe a Political Time of Testing, some point at which, if the narrative arc is to prove satisfying, the hero encounters criticism, most of it unjust, but then rallies, overcomes hardship and misfortune and the petty, self-serving attacks of enemies, and emerges chastened but wiser--and, come to think of it, more qualified to lead the greatest nation on earth.

In Biden's case, the ritual also allows him to dismiss these old charges by placing them in the least clarifying light possible. It's true that he was disciplined for plagiarizing a paper in law school, he says offhandedly; but those long paragraphs taken verbatim from other people's work were simply an oversight--a matter of not knowing how to cite sources properly. (A fun-loving student, he had skipped the class in which the rules of citation were taught.) As for the lines he'd lifted from others and dropped into his own speeches--these were misunderstandings. In at least one instance, a speechwriter had inserted a quote from Bobby Kennedy into Biden's speech without attribution, meaning that while Biden was delivering remarks he knew he hadn't written, he was also delivering remarks that he didn't know his speechwriter hadn't written.

It's confusing, yes, but Biden's explanations serve a dual purpose: He appears forthright even as he tries to bury once and for all the accusations that forced him from presidential contention 20 years ago. Now, officially, they are "old news," the settled stuff of history and memoir. To any detailed questions about them that might arise from young reporters covering his current campaign, he can say: Just read my book.

That's a lot to ask, however. Like most conventional campaign books, Promises to Keep is so light in tone, so breezily written, that it becomes, paradoxically, extremely difficult to read. Its superficiality and general insincerity may explain why the traditional campaign book has become a dying genre. In the stack in my office, none of the other campaign books looks like a campaign book. They look like everything but campaign books. I've got a self-help manual, a business book, a sociological tract--nowadays, a candidate will do whatever it takes to disguise his campaign book. It's as if our politicians, knowing the low regard in which the public holds them and their craft, feel they can only advance their politics by stealth. This lays yet another complication onto what is already a slippery business.

The McCain campaign was ready to go with an ad about Biden (and I hear several other VP contenders). Their piece on Biden is already on the web, and the 30-second format suggests it will also play on TV during next week's convention. It's simple and devastating.

Every Republican operative I've talked to for the last week thought Biden was the weakest pick. He's a loose cannon who has already made several gaffes in the Hall of Fame of political screw-ups that will now be rehashed for the next week. Obama needed somebody that was reliable and could potentially deliver a red state. Biden is neither. Obama may think Biden shores up his own weakness on foreign policy, but it just emphasizes it. And given that most Americans think economic issues are more important, it's less clear what Biden delivers.

Let me also say that this announcement was a political catastrophe for the Obama campaign. I mean, what kind of presidential campaign announces their VP pick at 1:00 A.M. on a Friday night? This news should have been made earlier in the week -- at the very least, earlier in the day. The Obama communications shop took what should have been an exciting development and buried it in the middle of the night. Sure, the public will still hear plenty about Biden in the coming week. VP picks make the kind of news that can't be buried all that effectively. But this is the second time in recent weeks that the Obama campaign has demonstrated a stunning ignorance of political communications. Don't they know you're supposed to release good news on a Monday morning and bad news on a Friday afternoon?

Now it's John McCain's turn.

In talking to Republican sources close to the campaign, it seems clear that the decision has come down to three people: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Joe Lieberman. The basic dynamic of the McCain selection process has not changed. McCain is most comfortable with Lieberman and would pick his longtime friend if he could be convinced that the political consequences of doing so would not be fatal. Campaign manager Rick Davis has been calling Republican leaders around the country trying to gauge their likely reaction to a Lieberman pick.

Most of McCain's staff favors Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, along with a majority of the RNC types working closely with the campaign. Mitt Romney has some supporters, too, and in many cases he is the second choice of both Lieberman and Pawlenty backers. McCain advisers have been very impressed with Romney's critique of Barack Obama as a McCain surrogate.

What effect will Obama's selection of Joe Biden have on McCain's decision?

On the one hand, Pawlenty supporters will argue that it makes their man more plausible. Pawlenty is a fresh face -- a young, conservative, reform-minded governor -- exactly what McCain needs to run against two sitting senators. If the general election has come down to experience versus change -- with each candidate owning one of those attributes -- Pawlenty could help McCain mitigate Obama's advantage on change. Biden has been in the Senate longer than all but five of his colleagues -- not exactly change you can believe in.

On the other hand, the Biden pick could make Lieberman more doable for a candidate that seems more and more inclined to pick a "comfort" runningmate. Although many Washington insiders see Biden as flakey and unpredictable, he can come across as both likable and knowledgeable. He will do well in a VP debate. Would Pawlenty appear overmatched?

More important, McCain has made national security the central rationale for his candidacy. His main critique of Barack Obama has been that the Democrat is too inexperienced to serve as president during such serious times. Picking Pawlenty undercuts both of these arguments.

The timing of McCain's decision could well be crucial. And the longer he waits, the more likely Lieberman becomes. Democrats have been frustrated at their inability to convince voters that electing McCain will yield the same results as electing George W. Bush for a third term. So they will spend most of the next week linking McCain to "the failed policies of George W. Bush." It's an unpersuasive case for many reasons -- most especially because McCain has publicly challenged Bush on so many issues. But McCain is very sensitive to the comparison with Bush and while he's willing to give Bush credit for keeping us safe, it's no accident that he hasn't yet campaigned with Bush during the general election. If Democrats have success linking McCain and Bush -- or if McCain believes they are having success doing so -- no other choice would so effectively end that argument.

I have to admit to puzzlement over the Joe Biden selection. The conventional wisdom regarding vice-presidential nominees is first do no harm. Given that Biden has been a garrulous gaffe machine for his lengthy political career (36 years in the senate, although it feels like longer), it would seem the potential for harm is great.

Me, I thought Tim Kaine was the obvious choice. If Obama loses over the experience issue, it won’t be because his running mate is too green. And as a politician, Kaine would have brought a lot more talent to the race than any of the other contenders as well as a message perfectly in sync with Obama’s. Kaine also would have made Obama the favorite in Virginia. While the selection of Biden will provide fodder for much debate, a far more interesting topic to chew over is why Obama bypassed Kaine.

I’m also puzzled by the timing. If I were choosing Joe Biden as running mate, I too would incline to do so at a time when the nation was asleep and therefore might miss the news. But presumably Barack Obama views things differently. Also, why all the dithering? Was Obama doing his Hamlet thing again, or did the campaign truly decide that owning the Saturday-at-3:00 a.m. news cycle was the highest priority?

Anyway, I must offer thanks to the Obama campaign – the Biden selection promises to provide grand entertainment. On the right, we’ll get to dust off Joe Biden’s greatest hits, a pleasurable task that will take weeks. Also on the right, we’ll get to watch progressives feign joy over Obama’s elevation of an Iraq war supporter who enjoys a cozy relationship with the credit card companies (not that there’s anything wrong with either one of those things).

Like many people who read Richard Ben Cramer’s seminal “What It Takes,” I’ve long harbored a secret soft spot for Joe Biden. But that soft spot is always threatened by prolonged exposure to the man. Usually a 20 minute segment on Meet the Press provides a mortal threat to my lingering fondness for Biden. Like the head of the Democratic ticket, Joe Biden tends not to wear well, especially in concentrated doses over short periods of time. Speaking purely analytically, Obama has made a poor decision.

But that’s just on a political basis. For pure entertainment value, the Biden selection will be a homerun.

"If I'm the nominee, Republicans will be sorry.... The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.... And we have played into the hands of the Republicans. We've allowed so-called social issues to be so divisive."--Joe Biden, October 22, 2005

If only Dick Cheney had threatened to rip out the fingernails of Democrats who suggest he condones torture. Perhaps the debate about Gitmo wouldn't have become so divisive.