Denver, 66 Days Ago

Denver, 66 Days Ago

Denver, 66 Days Ago

The Power of a Postive Message

I've got to leave in a few minutes to do a little Labor Day canvassing, but I wanted to interrupt the flow of non-stop Palin posts to reflect on the Democratic convention.

The overwhelming takeaway, for me, is that my politics must no longer be an exercise in rhetoric but a starting point for action. I've said before that if the last two presidential elections have taught Dems anything, it's that voting alone is no longer enough. Democracy is more than simply exercising the vote. It's taking advantage of our freedoms to perform good works in our communities and in our world. This is the simple genius that Obama taps into: common purpose = common good.

We all want a better health care system. We all want better schools in the U.S. We all want the U.S. out of Iraq. We all want greater senses of freedom and security nationwide. We all want tax relief, or at least a sense that our tax dollars are being well spent. We all want government to listen and to show good faith.

If we can agree that we all hope for positive change in these areas, then we must be able to find ways to work toward equity and a little bit of the improvement we so desperately seek. It seems preposterous to say, but there was genuine goodwill in Denver last week. Not because the Democrats were in town, and not because Denver was the spotlight of so much attention, but because people on the streets were excited and hopeful. Denver's not short on positivity to begin with, but last week evidenced a surplus of it. That good will, that combination of excitement plus hope, delivers new fuel to tired political discourse. It also motivates political effort and community involvement, which I only hope we'll see become more and more linked in the years to come.

This is the enthusiasm gap so often referenced between the two parties. Democrats this year are genuinely high on positive messages. It helps that the candidate is thoughtful, charismatic, and charming. It helps even more that the message is one we can practice ourselves.

Howard Wolfson on Obama's DNC Acceptance Speech

A Clinton insider explains his positive reaction to Obama's speech.

Candidate McCain vs. Senator McCain: John Kerry and Joe Biden Revitalize the Case Against McCain

Much has been made of the McCain campaign's ability to control the argument over the past four weeks. By going brazenly negative, Steve Schmidt & Co. banked on putting the high minded Democratic candidate for change on the defensive and against the ropes. The past month has seen Obama faced with three bad choices: pass on the negative attacks, explain himself in response to negative attacks, and launch similar, negative attacks.

Obama has passed through all three of these phases and weathered a substantial amount of the storm. Passing on the negative ads infuriates Democrats who fear another Swiftboating in the offing. Explaining himself in response to the ads only focuses the electorate on the original smear (and as the old adage goes, if you're explaining, you're losing). Launching negative ads tit-for-tat against negative ads leaves Camp Obama susceptible to (valid) arguments that the candidate for change is running the same old political campaign as every other Washington insider and White House hopeful.

Last night at the Pepsi Center, Obama's options changed. The most effective agent for change that I've heard this entire season took the stage in the form of John Kerry.

Maybe there's something about losing presidential races. As I listened to Kerry speak, I found myself enamored with his sensible lines and his graceful and commanding oratory--qualities I don't remember hearing from 2004 as much as I remember the wooden mannerisms before the camera and the dangerously imperious tone that defined Kerry's style. Just as Al Gore has enjoyed a popularity boost since losing the 2000 election, and as Hillary Clinton appears remarkably poised to fill large shoes in the Democratic party without winning the nomination, perhaps John Kerry found himself last night on the edge of something grand after surviving the abyss of disappointment. Whatever Kerry's role will be, he provided the assault that Barack Obama clearly needed against John McCain.

Kerry dissected McCain's remarkably inconsistent history on almost every issue McCain has ever expressed an opinion on by splitting McCain down the middle.

I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let's compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.

By dividing the John McCain who's been in public office these past 26 years and highlighting the John McCain who's running for the presidency, John Kerry tapped the potential to point out all McCain's ridiculous flip flops without going negative.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it.

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself. And what's more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same "Rove" tactics and the same "Rove" staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear. Well, not this year, not this time. The Rove-McCain tactics are old and outworn, and America will reject them in 2008.

This line between Senator McCain and Candidate McCain is one the Obama Camp and the DNC need to ride all the way to election day. It's a great rhetorical device, perhaps the slickest I've heard all year, from any camp. What's more, it cuts to the heart of the debate against John McCain: at the end of the day, his policies are empty and not a soul in the country knows where the supposed maverick stands on any single issue, except perhaps his desire to confront nations with might before diplomacy and to add to the ultra conservative ranks of the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade.

John Kerry did another thing last night that the Obama camp needed from a surrogate. He took away the McCain campaign's free ride on the patriotism bulldozer.

[T]he candidate who once promised a "contest of ideas," now has nothing left but personal attacks. How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission, question the troops. How pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy doubt America itself. How desperate to tell the son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn't put America first.

. . . No one can question Barack Obama's patriotism. Like all of us, he was taught what it means to be an American by his family: his grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line in World War II, his grandfather who marched in Patton's army, and his great uncle who enlisted in the army right out of high school at the height of the war. And on a spring day in 1945, he helped liberate one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald.

This election is a chance for America to tell the merchants of fear and division: you don't decide who loves this country; you don't decide who is a patriot; you don't decide whose service counts and whose doesn't.

Emphasis mine. These last lines were possibly the most powerful lines spoken all night, though several veterans and the wife of a Marine also spoke eloquently about Obama's commitment to the troops and to this country. John Kerry nailed it, though, because he didn't simply stand up for Obama, he stood up for every American. The Repulican party may choose to ignore that message during the campaign season, but the Democrats now have the language they need and the surrogates they can count on to stand up day after day and say "The Republican attack machine of Karl Rove and his disciples is telling America who counts and who doesn't. A whole nation of independent and proud Americans is going to see right through that tactic come election day."

Joe Biden took his turn last night, of course. While I generally think Biden is a much better speaker off the cuff than from prepared remarks, and while I think his speech fell flat last night compared to some of the others we've heard through the convention, Biden did his share to level the playing field as well. Last night, Joe Biden took the following message to the country: "The choice in this election is clear. These times require more than a good soldier; they require a wise leader."

This will be an important point to watch in the development of the Obama/Biden campaign. Quietly, Joe Biden just took John McCain's single most understood strength and flatly said it's not enough. Karl Rove is known for saying that the strength is the target. Take away a candidate's perceived strength, and all that's left to focus on are the weaknesses. Joe Biden effectively said that John McCain is a patriot and a hero, and has suffered terribly for love of country. But frankly, that doesn't make a president.

Look for the Obama camp to role out the ads featuring all McCain's antics and temper tantrums, and then quietly reiterate these lines that Biden and Kerry drew last night. And, of course, let's not forget Bill Clinton, who electrified the crowds, delivered a hell of a great speech, and gave me goosebumps when he urged us all to remember that the world has always been "more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." Maybe an ad featuring John McCain's "bomb Iran" jig, followed by a dark screen with Clinton's simple quote and a stamp from the Obama/Biden '08 committee, would go over well among the undecideds.

The beauty of the coming months may just reveal that John McCain brings enough of his own negativity to the mix that Obama doesn't have to go negative to attack the guy.

Morning Roundup

Rather than write about the campaign briefing I got to sit in on this morning, which featured Howard Dean and David Plouffe, I'll link to this Mark Blumenthal piece about another meeting that sounds pretty similar, albeit more select.

I also got to hear Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer outline their enthusiasm for this year's crop of U.S. Senate races in which they believe Democrats face tough battles but are positioned to do well. Speakers of note also included Jeanne Shaheen, of NH, whose race against John Sununu, Jr., will be one to watch, as well as Mark Udall here in Colorado. Mark Warner, former Virginia governor and current candidate for senate, also spoke, and I'll simply say that he did more to impress me today than in the keynote address last night.

The last of the morning roundup included a talk with T. Boone Pickens about the Pickens Plan. The oil billionaire is clear about his message: renewable energy is essential for America (and the subtext should always read "and good for Boone Pickens, too"). On the whole, I think the Pickens Plan probably is good for America, but I haven't forgotten that Pickens is responsible for the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 (under whose leadership one can only assume the U.S. would enjoy a more healthful energy policy than the one we tap now). That alternative energies are the key to the future is hardly debatable anymore. The question for me is whether we want T. Boone Pickens to hold the keys to that bright, new kingdom. And that question, unfortunately, did not come up in the talk under the big tent.

More later about the gaveling in of today's session, tonight's speeches, and the party afterward to honor the vice presidential nominee.

How Hillary Clinton Made the Tent a Little Bigger

Last night after returning home from the Pepsi Center, I wrote the following in an email:

We just got home, still a little bit dazed by all the political star power. Hillary Clinton brought her A-game, and every single note rang as well as it possibly could have throughout the halls of the Pepsi Center.

Here's a thought that's haunted me this evening: If Clinton had managed to connect as well during the primary as she has since, and if Obama had been as anemic through the primary as he's been perceived to be since, I'm not sure the roles wouldn't have been reversed between the two this week at the convention.

On a side note, Deval Patrick gave a great speech, as did Ted Strickland, who delivered one of the best zingers of the night: "Well, with the 22 million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base--and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way."

Hillary Clinton really and truly brought her best speech last night. If there are a few remaining, unhappy Clinton supporters who won't vote Democratic this year, I'm not sure where they are. Except for Debra Bartoshevich, of course, but I think Steve Benen summed her radical position in support of John McCain quite nicely: she's just confused.

After Monday and Tuesday night speeches by Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama arguably has a huge job ahead on Thursday to follow those acts. And that doesn't take into account the other Clinton, set to speak tonight. (See this post from Andy Borowitz at the Huffington Post for an eye opening tidbit to underscore the tension not only between the former president and the contender, but between the DNC and the former president!)

Not only does Obama have to bring his best to Denver this Thursday, he's going to have to improve upon and repeat that effort every single day until the election. No more vacations and no more free passes. Hillary Clinton raised the bar last night on every front. She connected with her audience, and she assailed the politics of George W. Bush and John McCain:"No way, no how, no McCain!" Her call wasn't simply to create unity within the party behind the candidate, but to draw a stark line in the sand for every single Democrat who hopes for a better future for this country. To all her supporters, Clinton asked "Were you in this campaign just for me? . . . Or were you in in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?"

Unlike her concession speech that effectively ended the primary season, Clinton did not simply bang the "I support Barack Obama" drum. Last night she laid down the challenge for Democrats and insisted that we all must support Barack Obama for the future of this country. Hillary Clinton, alone on a big stage, brought the best of her personal and political selves, brought her A-game, and brought down the house.

McCain's Frequent Colorado Visits

John McCain is making a whole lot of visits to Colorado these days. After a much publicized Denver town hall meeting three weeks ago, when a protester was removed from a walkway outside the event simply for carrying a sign that read "McCain=Bush," McCain returned to Colorado last Friday to address Latino veterans, blast Obama on foreign policy, and make a quick stop in Aspen to meet the Dalai Lama.

The Denver Post also reports that McCain will be back in the pivotal western state today, raising cash and rallying support.

So why is Colorado so popular for McCain? It could have something to do with Barack Obama's efforts to put traditionally red states in play. To be sure, Colorado is more of a purple state in recent years, and boasts a Democratic governor and a majority of Democrats at the state level. It could also be because Obama has one big campaign date here in the near future: August 25-28. The more time McCain can spend in Colorado without upsetting the city's status quo (little old librarian ladies aside), the more public support--especially among undecided voters--the Republican may be able to draw away from the convention.

Obama's popularity in Colorado--and especially in Denver--could actually take a hit depending on how much of a disruption the Democratic National Convention makes in people's daily lives. Furthermore, if business resulting from the convention is not as good as the projections, Denverites and Coloradans may be inclined to see that as a negative in the Obama hype column (though in fairness to the candidate, both the Dem National Committee and the city of Denver will have as much or more to do with that as the candidate and his campaign).

Never mind that it's apples to oranges. John McCain will be out on national TV reminding folks that he's been to Denver a dozen times this year and never tied up city streets or wreaked havoc for local businesses. Bottom line is, if people in Denver get frustrated during the convention, they might actually be inclined to buy into what they hear.

Unconventional Denver

Something to keep an eye on, maybe:

"We don't want history to remember the Democratic National Convention in Denver as something that went smoothly," said Tim Simons with the self-described anarchist group, Unconventional Denver.

I say "maybe" because the word anarchist always sounds so scary, but the truth of the matter may be much more, er, conventional. The group is in Denver this weekend to hold a "secret action camp to learn about medical training and legal rights and to practice nonviolent tactics," according to the Denver Post.

Sounds pretty warm and rootsy, actually. Which may not be far off the mark.

"The streets will be a wild and creative place," said Simons, a 25-year-old graphic artist who grew up in Boulder and lives in San Francisco. "We don't want to see a dark, evil atmosphere descending on Denver . . . . We want a festive atmosphere that celebrates grassroots movements."

From his mouth to Sonny Jackson's ears. The Denver police spokesperson says "We respect everyone's First Amendment rights . . . . We hope that the citizens will come in and conduct themselves in a law-abiding and responsible manner."

The newspaper further reported that local and federal law enforcement for the convention will be subsidized in part by a $50 million federal grant. Protest groups, I suspect, will not be so well funded, but could wreak havoc none the less by blocking intersections and staging protests outside of convention venues and popular Denver businesses. Should be an exciting time through and through.

Obama at Invesco, and My $5

Have you heard yet that Obama's on for the big acceptance speech at Invesco? Well how about this?

If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them.

That's from an email the Obama campaign sent to my inbox (and tens of thousands more) today. The email seizes on two key issues: the excitement of this moment in history, and the real potential presented by small-donor contributions. By taking the buy-in price of supporting the candidate way down and putting a $5 pitch out there, and by attaching the possibility of such an alluring prize to the contribution, the campaign comes up with a winning hook.

The gamble is that the number of incoming, $5 contributions will easily cover the costs of flying 20 people to town and putting them up for a couple nights. Heck, maybe I've got a better-than-even chance of winning, since we're in Denver already and the campaign could save a little money by bringing us on but telling us we'll have to stay in our own place (I'm only partly tongue in cheek, here). Even though we're strapped, I bet I can find five bucks if it means I might win a chance to get on site and behind the scenes at the convention.

So how many others are thinking like me? I'm curious to see how much moolah the campaign can reap in the form of what amounts to an online, $5 raffle extravaganza.

He Said It

When is inspiring not inspiring? Perhaps when it's merely suggesting, or better yet "dreaming."

Case in point, Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

For a second day in a row today, the conservative talker discussed the potential for protests and power struggles at the August convention.

"Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming, I'm dreaming of riots in Denver," he said mimicking the holiday tune.

He explained on-air: "Riots in Denver at the Democrat Convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said. "And that's the best damn thing (that) could happen for this country as far as anything I can think."

Emphasis mine. Call me crabby, I guess. I'm just not willing to accept the "not inspiring" argument. Inspiration is a slippery thing; here the speaker has made a case for why he thinks, in a direct, syllogistic statement, that "riots in Denver at the Democrat [sic, of course] Convention" would be "the best damn thing that could happen for (this) country . . . ."

What? Am I wrong? Look, the guy said it, whistled a tune, explained--pretty clearly--why riots in Denver would be so great. To say that's not inciting, okay that's close. I listened to the comment, and it wasn't delivered with the invective one would call "inciting." But to claim "not inspiring," on a radio show that reaches literally millions every day? That's just not credible.

Imagine the endless commentary, Limbaugh leading the way, if a Democrat or a popular liberal media personality called for riots at the Republican convention? Well, not called for, of course, but, you know, mentioned. "Dreamed" of, I suppose. Certainly didn't incite. Just casually dropped a plug for riots in an American city as the best thing for America. Inspired? Nah.

Yeah, I can imagine how that goes, and it isn't pretty. It'd be blasted as incendiary if not treasonous. I hope the media doesn't lose sight of that as Limbaugh continues to hedge while pushing his radical agenda, but I won't hold my breath.