Observations follow below the cut:
9:58–wound up watching on PBS. The guys on CNN wouldn’t shut the hëll up.
I remember exactly where I was when watching the first Obama speech back in 2004: At Bill Mumy’s house. We watched it together and were both blown away by it.
Somehow it always seems to me that Obama’s latest speech is always the biggest speech of his career. Anyone else notice that?
10:01–Great. A video. Ah, the MTV generation, which can’t relate to a major speaker unless it’s introduced by a video.
10:05–the video works on addressing the knocks against him. The notion that he is some elite snob is countered by emphasizing his down home, Kansas roots. Both Obama and his wife comment on his name, which generates much scorn and skepticism from pundits and ignoramuses trying to equate his name with terrorism.
10:12–I wonder if Paul McCartney will come out.
10:13–I love all the signs that say “Change.” If I were there I’d keep throwing quarters to people and say, “Here you go. You don’t have to beg.”
10:14–Anyone counting how many times he said “Thank you?”
10:15–Smart. He’s acknowledging Hillary right up front.
10:16–Hmm. Tepid cheers for Bill Clinton. Ted Kennedy got a larger response. Bigger cheer for Joe Biden.
10:19–“We are better than these last eight years.” Good line.
10:21–“Eight is enough.” They should get Ðìçk Van Patten for a commercial that says that.
10:23–Thus far, rather than going for high flown rhetoric, he’s going for a fairly straightforward assault on Bush and McCain. Not sure if this is a good thing, since what has distinguished him is his ability to rise above standard issue attack. On the other hand, he’s going to have to be willing to go head to head with the sort of attacks the GOP will doubtless mount.
10:26–the question is, is he going to get into specifics of what he wants to do to change things?
10:29–He’s basically presenting himself as an example of what can happen when the government assists people in need. Not a bad way to go.
10:30–still hasn’t reached the soaring rhetoric of 2004’s keynote speech.
10:32–okay, good. Specifics.
10:33–a direct attempt to battle the GOP notion that Democrats=tax.
10:34–Ending oil dependency should be a major issue. Safely harnessing nuclear power, though; that could be problematic.
10:35–Somewhere Al Gore is smiling over the emphasis on alternate fuels.
10:37–that’s pretty sweet health coverage, what Congress gets.
10:38–Oh, I think Obama’s daughters opportunities will be pretty promising no matter what.
10:39–I am dubious over the prospect of his going over the budget line by line.
10:40–What, there’s no such thing as absentee mothers while fathers are doing their best to raise their children?
10:41–“if we have them in our sights.” Well, that’s the problem when it comes to Bin Laden, isn’t it. He’s used the “won’t follow him to the cave he lives” line before.
10:43–That’s true enough, that this isn’t the change America needs. McCain’s bellicosity isn’t what’s needed. And Bush et al didn’t merely squander the legacy that was built. They squandered the opportunity to build a genuine global coalition after the catastrophe of 9/11.
10:46–He’s trying to take the patriotism weapon out of the GOP’s hands. This is the first point in the speech where he’s really starting to reach the rhetoric levels of previous speeches.
10:48–Actually, no, we can’t agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, because many of the “no abortion” advocates don’t want birth control. And no, we can’t agree on the Second Amendment because yes, gun advocates really DO want everyone to be able to have AK-47s if they’re so inclined.
10:50–“If you don’t have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from.” Nice.
10:51–“This election was never about me. It’s about you!” Well…no. It’s about him.
10:53–I like the “I’ve seen change” riff. Sounds like a cross of JFK and MLK in oratorical stylings.
10:54–Why did he suddenly start whistling his “s”s?
10:55–And now he actually invokes MLK. Wonder if he’ll bring up JFK.
10:56–Now he’s rolling.
Ðámņ. Wouldn’t have minded a few more minutes on the level of the end of the speech. Always leave them wanting more, I suppose.
He had to walk a fine line: on the one hand, if he went for the soaring inspirational style that marked his 2004 Keynote speech, he’d be slammed for being vague and unspecific. On the other hand if he remained solely focused on down-to-earth considerations, then he sacrifices the sort of inspiring rhetoric that remains his strength. So he tried to strike a balance. the result was that the speech was a bit unfocused, trying to be all things to all people and accomplish all manner of things. There’s a reason the Gettysburg Address remains so memorable: It was ten sentences long. Talk about focused.
Overall a B+.
PAD
• 
Um…yeah. A one- or two-minute video, fine. But what the heck is this, a full-length documentary? Where’s that bloody acceptance speech?
Best way to watch, IMHO, is on CSpan. NO commentators! Make your opinions. Ðámņ shame, though, they didn’t run the balloting in prime time. That’s what the convention (used to be) all about.
Ok did anyone else have a West Wing flashback with the “Eight is enough!!” chant
C-Span is wonderful.
And am I right that the video was narrated by David Strathairn? If so, I think one of my colleagues may have just decided her vote. 🙂
TWL
10:25 – I’m watching the CBS Newsfeed right now. Like the speech so far.
And yes, “We are better than these last eight years” should be a major theme from here on in. I like it a lot.
As for your 10:23 update: agreed. This will probably be effective, but it’s not the speech I’d like.
The actual feed, pre-broadcast. Which is probably CSPAN. No graphics.
10:28 – his problem has always been taking the “how” out of the speech, but the “how” is always addressed on his website.
…
I hear.
Not true, Osbo. We get graphics. It’s everything you see on CNN, just no commentary taking up time.
10:32: And heeeeere come the specifics!
Ten years to end dependence on foreign oil. Ambitious, but Kennedyesque in that sense.
I have no idea how he can possibly cut taxes: we have a stupid war we’re going to be paying for for years, no matter who is president.
I have no idea how he can possibly cut taxes: we have a stupid war we’re going to be paying for for years, no matter who is president.
Excellent point on education, again using himself and his wife as test cases. Me like.
I have no idea how he can possibly cut taxes: we have a stupid war we’re going to be paying for for years, no matter who is president.
Ok, I’ve a life long republican who (with the exceptions of a local sherif whom I knew personally) never voted democrat. Now I am 95% sure I’m voting Obama, and 90% I am going to volunteer for John Corzines reelection. What has happened to this world lol.
Wow, John. Even I’m not sure I’m voting for Corzine again, and I’m a lifelong Democrat. A strange world indeed.
10:41: Whew. I was fearing for a second that he was about to say, “Bring it on.” “That’s a debate I’m ready to have” is a lot better.
Tim, the thing is when Corzine was a senator I worked against him.
What, there’s no such thing as absentee mothers while fathers are doing their best to raise their children?
Not in nearly the same abundance, so far as I know. (Anybody have the numbers on that?) I certainly take your point, though.
Nice jab just now about the future vs. the past.
10:46 — here’s the position of “a new politics”, but I certainly like it. Questioning patriotism is something it would be nice if both sides were above.
“What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose — and that’s what we have to restore.”
THAT is why he came out of nowhere to knock Hillary out. I can’t see her saying that line and meaning it.
10:48 – Gay Marriage, that took balls.
VERY interesting rhetorical approach there — he not only mentioned MLK the preacher, but took on serious preacher tones at the end there. Intriguing.
On the whole, I think it was a pretty good speech, but I’ll admit I’m a bit biased. I hate to get all horse-race focused, but I wonder what kind of bounce he’ll get out of this week.
Thanks for the thread, oh host!
10:56–Now he’s rolling.
10:57–and now, um, now he’s…done?
He’ll raise taxes on those who grow wealthy from the infrastructure we all maintain they benefited disproportionately from.
Linda wrote:
The plan is to cut taxes for the middle and lower income earners and jack them up for the high-income earners to offset the cuts.
See here for details. It remains to be seen if he can get this past the legislature.
What’s with the Dark Knight music right now?
And on a marginally different note, some good anagrams for OBAMA BIDEN:
Nabob Media
Adman Be Bio
Bad Name Obi (that’s what Anakin said)
Bad Mane Bio (if McCain picks Romney as VP)
A Bad Bi Omen
CBC Newsworld’s talking heads knew enough to let the man talk. I listened to the whole thing, start to finish. They did not comment until it was over and done.
Missed about the first half, so can’t comment on the whole thing. But I had a few impressions.
I know I am a conservative, but I found his speech not as inspiring as I expected. It felt like he was trying too hard.
His comment about gay marriage was vague. Fine, we can agree to disagree on it but there should be no discrimination. What does that mean? Many would argue that denying them marriage is discrimination. Things like this let him sound moderate when that might not actually be the case (and I would guess he is as liberal as they come).
His comments on defending the country were fine — if he means them. But they seem detached from reality. Does he think Bush didn’t try to get Bin Laden when he had him in his sights?
All that said, he is a far better candidate than Gore or Kerry. Unlike PAD, if I had to bet my life on the outcome, I would have to say Obama would win if the election was today. It will be interesting to see how Republicans respond next week.
The bottom line really comes to this: Can Obama actually deliver what he promises? That is the problem for every president, I know. But his lack of experience makes it more of a leap of faith that he can do so.
Iowa Jim
PAD: “And no, we can’t agree on the Second Amendment because yes, gun advocates really DO want everyone to be able to have AK-47s if they’re so inclined.”
Bûllšhìŧ. Pure partisan bûllšhìŧ.
I believe strongly that the 2nd Amendment says I can own a gun. I do not, however, believe everyone is entitled to AK-47’s. I would expect someone as intelligent as yourself not to make such a bone-headed mistake of trying to make a blanked statement such as that, because all it takes is ONE person to say “um, no, I don’t believe that way” and you’ve been proven WRONG.
Should Alberta oil firms start worrying about that “oil dependence” remark? He was rather specific about the Middle East, as opposed to Canadian oil, but considering the ecological and commercial concerns in both Canadian and US voting bases…
Scott, would it help if Peter had put “many” or “most” right before “gun advocates”?
And given your beliefs, you might want to make sure you call his statement a blanket statement rather than a “blanked” one. That typo has some intriguing connotations!
TWL
In order for Peter’s statement to be wrong, there would have to be absolutely no gun advocates who want everyone to have open access to ak-47s. He didn’t say you weren’t a gun advocate if you believe in conditional access to ak-47s. Don’t know why it was so important for you to call bûllšhìŧ on it.
My mother is a no abortion advocate. You are correct that some of them do not want any form of birth control other than abstinence. People of that persuasion, however are in my experience very amenable to education as a way to discourage unwanted pregnancies.
Well, education in the form of “this is what I believe and if you believe otherwise then you are going to hëll” but somewhere in the propaganda there is usually a good idea to be found. If you sift long enough.
On a different note, people keep harping on Obama’s lack of experience. I am not sure that I completely understand this argument.
No one has experience being President when they first get the job. It is unlike being governor. It is unlike being a senator. It is unlike any other job in the world. In that sense, the only person who ever has experience is the candidate who runs for a second term.
10:48 – Gay Marriage, that took balls.
Huh?
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 the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
THAT took balls? Other than Fred Phelps you won’t find too many people willing to say they support keeping gay men and women from visiting their loved ones in hospitals. Way to set the bar low.
I don’t see much difference in Obama and Mccain on gay marriage. Except that Obama supporters tell me that he secretly is for it but isn’t saying so for political reasons. I don’t think they’re correct but one of us will be disappointed–me if it turns out he’s that cowardly and them if it turns out he really means what he says.
A very good speech. His 2004 one was a great speech. But the stakes were way less back then and, as PAD quite wisely points out, a flowery inspirational speech is probably not the best choice for a guy whose biggest downside is the perception that he is short on specifics. At least he avoided the “laundry list” vibe that Hillary hit.
What I was challenging regarding guns was Obama’s comments that “we can all agree on–” And I was saying, Well, no, we can’t, because there are people who don’t feel that way. It takes a deliberate misreading of the entire context of my comment to claim that I was asserting ALL gun advocates feel any particular way.
PAD
This was a very impressive speech. Sure, not everything he promised will happen (less taxes, no defecit, pudding for all), but that happens with every presidential candidate. I was very impressed that he tackled such controversial issues as abortion, gay rights, and gun control — and suggested we can disagree and still work together (as opposed to the Bush philosophy (which, sadly, has been more and more the Republican party philosophy) that “you’re with us or you’re against us”).
And sadly, PAD was dead on when he observed that “Actually, no, we can’t agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, because many of the ‘no abortion’ advocates don’t want birth control.” I blame Bush’s slavish obediance to the Religious Reich for this, and the idea that not teaching people about birth control and telling them “just say no” will make them all wait until marriage (heterosexual, of course) until they start breeding. Then again, is anyone surprised that Bush would place personal beliefs over information and individual choice?
THAT took balls?
I think the point was that mentioning gay marriage AT ALL took balls. I’m not sure he’s wrong.
TWL
Could be he’s biding time and leaving the marriage issue up to the states? After all, Massachusetts and California have legalized gay marriage under Bush’s watch, and who knows how many other cases will eventually go up before the courts in other states?
I’m all for marriage equality, even though I’m not sure letting the courts decide the matter is the best way to go (it only enrages those conservatives who like to cry about judicial activism & stuff), but again, leaving it up to Congress and, yeah, the President, will likely get us nowhere. Maybe grassroots campaigns and lawsuits filed by ordinary citizens are the way to go.
Iowa Jim wrote:
Between moving military assests away from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002-2003 and disbanding the CIA Bin Laden Station in 2005, it seems like he’s not trying very hard.
I hate to sound superficial, but my favorite part was when NBC showed the close-up of Morgan Fairchild–or someone who looks a lot like her…
I would be even more greatly impressed with Obama if that was directed at McCain’s chief campaign operator — who is notorious for his temper (he has nosebled during them), has a gay sister, and is known to have pressured the Governator to legalize gay marriage in CA when he ran his reelection campaign — to piss him off and maybe drive him to second-guess his resolve at the same time.
“This was a very impressive speech. Sure, not everything he promised will happen (less taxes, no deficit, pudding for all)…”
The first candidate who explicitly promises Pudding For All gets my vote.
Best line of the night? (And I’m paraphrasing here)
‘In times like these, change doesn’t come from washington. Change comes to washington.’
Spot on.
PAD: 10:41–“if we have them in our sights.” Well, that’s the problem when it comes to Bin Laden, isn’t it. He’s used the “won’t follow him to the cave he lives” line before.
What I was expecting Obama to say was that McCain says he’ll follow bin Laden to Hëll, but he won’t follow him to Pakistan. That’s because Obama has been asked, if he received actionable intelligence about bin Laden’s location, would he authorize a strike in Pakistan. Obama said yes and McCain ridiculed that position, despite the fact that even Bush has authorized doing that. So given the hypothetical of us having intelligence giving us bin Laden’s location, McCain really has said that he wouldn’t follow him into Pakistan.
I think that line is a winner for Obama and he should keep using it.
Overall I thought it was a good speech. I wanted more specifics, but I pretty much always want that. I’m sick of speeches, so I’m in no condition to judge the soaringness of the rhetoric, but I thought it picked up pretty well. I especially liked how he referred to MLK as “the preacher”, kinda forcing the audience to say the name in their heads. It’s a kind of subtle audience participation thing, like repeating a line so often that you get them to finish it for you.
Tim Lynch: Wow, John. Even I’m not sure I’m voting for Corzine again, and I’m a lifelong Democrat. A strange world indeed.
Luigi Novi: ??????? Um, Tim, have you and Lisa moved to New Jersey when we weren’t looking, or something?
jjacobford: Could be he’s biding time and leaving the marriage issue up to the states?
It’s not really biding time, that’s his stated position. He says he’s for strong civil unions and not marriage, but he thinks states should decide. So effectively he’s not going to do anything.
Effectively, McCain isn’t going to do anything either. But he’s coming at it from the opposite direction. He’s very strongly against civil unions, though when he’s talking to Ellen Degeneres he keeps things vague enough so that isn’t obvious. He’s said that the only way he’d support a constitutional amendment is if people were getting married in one state and then other states were being forced to abide by those marriages. That *is* going to happen, but there’s no chance in hëll of a constitutional amendment about that going through, so I doubt he’d actually do much other than some unhelpful rhetoric.
That took BALLS?
It was an initial reaction to the line. To my knowledge, this speech was the first to really mention abortion and the gay marriage issue in the entire DNC. Apparently, most felt it needed to be avoided.
Then again, I still haven’t watched the speeches from the night before, because I was busy working. Someone may have mentioned it then.
So yes, to mention it, took balls. However briefly he did. Then the rest was about finding the middle ground behind a difficult, divisive issue. And that’s what Obama stood for in 04, and apparently stands for here.
Like PAD, it was the initial liveblogging moment – “Oh my God, did he just say ‘gay marriage’!?”
To some, even my liberal father who feels that that issue will lose us this next election, it is divisive enough to even mention.
I’m not used to democrats having balls. Even ones that dip into the hot water for a split second.