Mile High (Updated)

Finally some vigorous attacking. One-two punch from the Dems--Gore, then Obama. Al Gore finally, energetically, compellingly indicting this administration for its malfeasance.  2008 Gore would have blown 2000 Bush out of the water. Richardson addressed the torture and rule of law themes earlier, and Gore hit them strongly as well.  Obama, alas, did not. Obama's, nevertheless, speech was very effective, and exceeded my expectations. 

I think that the line of attack, for instance, suggested in the line that it's not that McCain doesn't care, it's that he doesn't get it could be very effective. The Grandpa Simpson theme is implied in it. The theme about tough talk and bad strategy when it comes to foreign policy also works along those lines, especially regarding temperament and judgment. Another good attack theme: Republicans making a big election about small things. All these are pregnant with future possibilities.

More positive themes: Something is stirring--either you feel it or you don't. His appeal to the American ideal and American promise at at time when we have lost our sense of common purpose is exactly the kind of thing the country needs, and he needs if he's to win over the mushy middle. I liked his appeal to find common ground and understanding regarding the controversial cultural issues that divide us--abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc.  If he can get the country to bracket those, it will be a major coup.

It seemed to me the Obama that has been missing since June has at long last showed up again. He must define rather than be defined.

I'm feeling temporarily at least, less cynical.  This guy does have potential.  It's just a question of whether he realizes it.  He's a project in development. More as I absorb the details. Or not.

***

UPDATE: Some more thoughts. The content of the speech was primarily addressed to Main Street. I thought is was masterful in being both post-partisan and aggressive--It's not that McCain doesn't care, he just doesn't get it. He's a nice guy, and you love him, but he's like your grandpa who just doesn't understand your music and your problems--and you don't want him running your life. It's an effective way to aggressively attack McCain and the GOP legacy without demonizing him and it.  Sure, he gets a little cranky and petulant, but he's a good guy, really.  He's grampa! They don't have to stress that he's physically old, but that he's attitudinally old; he's simply out of touch and clueless--he doesn't even know how to use a computer, and only recently mastered two or three buttons on the TV remote. It's not that he's an evil Republican; he's just not presidential caliber material.

Post partisanship is not primarily about compromise but about saying "Enough" to all the nonsense our politics has become, and it defined McCain very effectively as just another purveyor of that out-of-date nonsense. That resonates with what most sane people know about our political culture. But they need somebody who can credibly call it out and credibly present another possibility. People are intrigued by something new, but they're afraid of it at the same time.  The trick is to represent the possibility of something new and better while at the same time representing something safe.  

Now it's an open question whether Obama can effect something new and better, but no one in my memory can conjure an imagination of it for a Main Street audience more effectively than he. That's his meal ticket. Job number one for Obama is to change in a fundamental way the framework of our political discourse.  He will do it not by sounding like Ted Kennedy or Hillary or even Joe Biden, but like Lincoln. He has to be kind and conciliatory, but he has to be strong and fair.  He has to redefine the center, and he has to do it by appealing to America's best sense of itself and its basic ideals of fairness and compassion. In this sense, his speech was Lincolnesque.

The speech reminded me of what attracted me to this guy in the first place.  My fear was that he was going to go all timid and become Kerry deja vu. But the fire was there again. If he keeps it stoked, he will win.  First win, then change the terms of the conversation, and then we can start talking about restoring the constitutional infrastructure of this country that the GOP has systematically worked to dismantle.

Comments

[Guy Fawkes]

"What if this is as good as it gets?"

--Jack Nicholson

Well, it could be. But that was the greatest piece of rhetoric/oratory I have seen live in my short lifetime.

Obama is #44 - and if he isn't, America will have to hit bottom yet again and will be ripe for revolution!

[Matt Zemek]

Wow, guys.

I don't/didn't see the magic.

For someone with Obama's gifts and talents, this was an underwhelming speech. Obama delivered it well, but the text could have been written by anyone. It was a rather boilerplate speech that was defined by attacks on McCain more than positive assertions by Obama.

There were many clever and astute and logical and sensible phrasings meant to appeal to a clarified and elevated sense of reason, but I can just see the Republicans going to the red meat attacks and (still, once again) succeeding.

The Democrats, in terms of pitch, tone and tenor, are doing the same things they've always done. This feels like the same slow-motion train wreck witnessed in 2000 and 2004.

I don't see anything truly new about any of this.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe my grumpy, curmudgeonly perspective is so irretrievably entrenched that I'm refusing to see what was good about Obama's speech.

But as I listened to the words that tumbled out of Obama's vocal chords, I thought, "I've heard this kind of speech before."

Oh, well. Call me in a week after McCain's nomination speech.

[Steve Allison]

I thought it was great. He's changing the story. He refuses to be painted in the way the opposition portrays him and he has real critique's of the old way of doing things. We don't have to accept the narrative of the lazy and unfair right wing which is that government is helpless when it comes to helping people and that dog-eat-dog capitalism and economic rationalism is totally scientific and God's will.

[Valerius]

I agree with Matt Zemak. There was nothing remarkable about the speech itself. Even the fireworks at the end seemed a kind 'small potatoes' when compared to the magnificent show put on by the Chinese in the Olympic Games.

Obama has virtually adopted the same platform and political philosophy of Bill Clinton--a kind of centrist, liberal communitarian. That government is not the answer to all of our problems, but that there should be a social safety net nevertheless. Personal responsibility is important, and it's not that the free market doesn't work so much as it's big corp. gaming the system (through exposing corporate tax loopholes, for instance).

[Valerius]

By the way, can anyone think of any program Obama said he would cut in order to balance the budget? He should be acclimated to it enough by now to provide specifics on the programs he would cut, but I haven't been able to find out which ones he's thinking about.

[Steve Allison]

Why do people expect Obama to be so specific when the mantra of the other side is to fold hands, sit and wait and let the market do it?

[Steve Allison]

Sorry to vent like that. Yes, some more specifics would be good.

[Valerius]

Steve,

Because lowering tax rates and providing Pigovian tax credits is a governing philosophy. Since liberals tend to see the government as taking an 'active' government role, it's natural to expect them to lay out what they intend that active role to be and the specifics behind it. Conservatives tend to see the government as taking a more 'passive' role--at least in the economic sphere.

[Jack Whelan]

Dude, if you want specifics, go to his website; there's enough detail there to choke a whale. Since when are convention speeches about providing specifics? His speech last night is about as specific as these things ever get. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/