Shock and awe

Just a few words about Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech, because I won't be able to match the eloquence on display by both politician and pundit alike tonight.

The expectations for this speech seemed impossibly high. In front of a crowd of 84,000 (and millions at home), on the anniversary of arguably the most famous speech in American history, and in light of a speech four years earlier that launched him onto the national scene, Barack Obama did everything he had to do, and much, much more.

Outlining a specific, Democratic plan for America's future, Senator Obama answered the questions posed even by doubters in his own party, basing it on the core values shared by all Americans, chiefly responsibility for self and for each other.

Rhetorically brilliant and inspiring, it reinforced the themes that have propelled this historic campaign: change that you can believe in and change you must work for. The "rhetorical flourishes" did not weigh it down - they lifted it up.

It brought the fight to Republicans like most Democrats have not been able or willing to do. It was filled with charge after charge, not only against the Bush administration and its faithful sidekick John McCain, but also against the failure of a self-defeating conservative ideology. Obama is ready to lead, and ready to fight for what he believes in.

And we need to fight with him.

Reviewing the Convention - Half-time

Predictably, this morning's coverage is focused on the Clintons: did Hillary do enough to bring home her rational supporters? Will Bill's speech focus on the night's theme, and more importantly, on Barack Obama, rather than on 1993-2000? This myopic view of the convention misses a lot of good moments, but the storyline for this week has been clear.

Obviously, I have no love lost for HRC, and I was ready for a speech where Barack Obama was an afterthought. While the beginning of the speech confirmed my fears, the second half really brought the fight to McCain and demonstrated why electing Barack is every Democrat's imperative. And while I'm no fan of Hillary's non-style, she did have some compelling rhetoric (the Harriet Tubman quote). I think she did what she needed to do, and no more, because the stakes are so high.

However, as MSNBC talking head / McCain BFF Mike Murphy pointed out, she could have given the same speech if Dennis Kucinich won the nomination. Here's someone you've been in the Senate with for four years, and you campaigned with/against for a year and a half. No personal anecdote? Sure, that's what Michelle's speech was for, but can you have too much about personal values?

As President Clinton continues to undercut Obama whenever someone puts a microphone in his face, I don't have high hopes for tonight. What should be a night about introducing Joe Biden to the nation and demonstrating why Democrats are ready to secure America's future will be reduced to a reminder about what people loved and hated about the 90s. But what do I know.

This might come as a surprise to people who watch cable news, but there were other speeches last night. After Monday's offering was described as too nice, Democrats went on the offensive (see below). At first, I was disappointed. The people I liked for VP/President were uninspiring: Kathleen Sebelius gave another speech that proves she cannot modulate her voice, and Mark Warner delivered a keynote that will be quickly forgotten. Warner's theme and the theme of this campaign dovetail nicely, but he's not a great orator.

I'm also disappointed that Gov. Schweitzer had to speak on 'Hillary Night'. What a speech! I think the analogy is set: Obama : 2004 convention :: Schweitzer : 2008 convention. He proved you can be a technocrat, folksy, and authentic at the same time. The governor knows how to work a crowd, and there's definitely going to be buzz around his name, especially if Democrats continue to see a Western Renaissance. Schweitzer 2016?

Here's your red meat

For everyone who thought Monday night was "too nice..."

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr.:

John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick!

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano:

Barry Goldwater ran for president, and he lost. Mo Udall ran for President, and he lost. Bruce Babbitt ran for president, and he lost. For this election cycle, that's one Arizona tradition I'd like to see continued.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius:

For John McCain , there's no place like home, or a home, or a home.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland:

You know, it was once said of the first George Bush that he was born on third base and thought he’d hit a triple. Well, with the twenty two 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.

Virginia Governor/Senator Mark Warner:

In four months, we will have a president who actually believes in science.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (ahem):

If you drill in all of John McCain's backyards, even the ones he doesn't know he has...that proposition is a dry well.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton:

It makes sense that George Bush and John McCain are going to be together next week in the twin cities because these days, it's hard to tell them apart.

I Like Joe Biden

The message from 62262 finally arrived at 2:16am on Saturday: "Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee. Watch the first Obama-Biden rally live at 3pm ET on www.BarackObama.com. Spread the word!" The story had broken earlier, but not through the usual series of leaks to friendly reporters. Instead, they happened to catch Secret Service at Biden's home. Take that, old media.

I embarked on the four hour trip down to Springfield, IL at 4am, for what was sure to be another historic speech (or two) at the Old State Capitol. Having missed Obama at a 2006 campaign event, the Miami Book Fair later that year, and the Kennedy endorsement celebration at American University, I simply had to do it. I was not disappointed: about 20 yards from the podium, I had an excellent view of the event. And while I didn't think Obama or Biden delivered their best speeches, the excitement put it over the top.

So, why do I like Joe Biden? In my Vice Presidential Diatribe, I categorically eliminated him for being a Washington insider, antithetical to the change message. If I had been asked to elaborate, I would have said he's blowhard with foot-in-mouth disease, the senator known online as Joe Biden (D-MBNA). Plus, his foreign policy experience balances rather than reinforces Obama's strengths. Oh, and he voted for the war. But at the end of the day, he's a passionate fighter, an old-school liberal, has a compelling personal story, and he's just plain likable.

As with any of the choices, Biden has weaknesses. Obviously, the RNC was going to attack any pick, especially someone who was an Obama detractor during the primaries (doesn't McCain know the DNC can do the same thing with Romney?). Predictably, they also are throwing Hillary's words at Obama for passing her over. And who knows if Biden can be disciplined, even with the stakes this high.

Strategically, Biden also has numerous strengths. He delivers attacks with a smile and bit of sardonic humor. Examples abound: he had the best line of the day when he said McCain would have to choose which of his seven dinner tables to sit at. In 2004, he allegedly told Dick Cheney:
"Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required." And there's always this, the best line of the debates (that can easily be adapted for McCain):



Biden is going to eat the Republican VP alive in the debates, outperforming Lieberman and Edwards in his sleep. He wears the attack dog role well, unlike a Kaine/Sebelius/Bayh pick. His energy and attitude belies his 66 years. Plus, his age in 2016 precludes him from a presidential run, creating a real opportunity to nominate a new, progressive candidate. Can you imagine being 'stuck' with Evan Bayh in eight years? :shudder:

Obama/Biden is a formidable ticket, as Republican Senators Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and Arlen Specter have acknowledged (good message discipline, GOP!). Despite any initial disappointment with such a safe choice, I'm reminded that most of the short-listers were safe. None were unacceptable to a majority of Democrats, in a way that Romney, Lieberman, Ridge, Huckabee, Jindal, and Crist are to Republicans. Each of those picks has the chance to fracture the Republican base and upset some of the -Cons (paleo-, neo-, corporate-, etc.) that make up their party.

So bring it on, Old Man McCain. Try to step on Obama's bounce by announcing your choice on Friday. It's your 72nd birthday, so don't pick someone too old or too young! It's also the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, so don't pick someone whose negligent deregulation put American citizens in danger. Oh, and try to beat this picture:

From David to Dexter... Michael C. Hall's Deeply Damaged Dramatics

I recently finished watching Six Feet Under in its entirety, during a week of marathon viewing sessions (the only way to truly appreciate TV, in my opinion). What a fantastic show... I regret not watching it earlier. SFU at its best explores the dualities of life, often by having the characters confront the contradictions of their personalities desires, struggling with the cognitive dissonance.

This is never more apparent than in the character of David Fisher, played by the brilliant Michael C. Hall, who has had the most post-SFU success as the titular Dexter on Showtime (which is quickly becoming the destination for quality TV as HBO's franchises retire in succession). At first glance, the two characters seem very different, but they actually have a great deal in common.

*Spoilers to both series follow.*

David begins the series as a closeted gay man, battling his own homophobia and self-loathing. He is totally repressed and conservative, from his bottom-down attire, to his cold, controlling interactions with family and clients. Even as he comes out, he is hardly ever at ease with his life, struggling with how his sexuality defines him. He insists on living with what society has deemed as normal.

Dexter hides his life as a vigilante serial killer, and turns his loathing outward, to a world and to people he does not understand. He represses and channels his urges using the "Code of Harry," killing only those that have wronged society yet fallen from justice's blind grip with a cold, clean, bloodless brutality. Dexter is forever grasping for normality, figuring out what society expects, and faking the appropriate reactions.

They both love broken people. Dexter purposely seeks out the battered Rita; abuse has left her just as asexual as Dexter, and she becomes his 'beard.' And as Rita heals, Dexter begins to legitimately feel affection for Rita and the kids, a strange tinge of compassion that had previously been limited to his sister. Keith is David's soulmate, but he must deal with the scars of an abusive father and reconcile his sexuality both with his race and his hypermasculine professions. These couples may be damaged, but they're damaged in all the same places.

The fathers of David and Dexter loom over them, even in death. As he works to maintain the family business and follow in his father's footsteps, David is haunted by his father's disapproval (although since they only interact in dreams, we only get one side of the story, as David projects his inward anger onto his father's ghost). Dexter's father saves him from the tragedy that created him, and crafts a set of rules that will allow him to live in society. However, as Dexter is still a story in progress, we'll have to see how he lives now that the truths about Harry has allowed him to stop deifying his adoptive father.

The characters also have significant relationships with their older brothers (who both die young, Brian at Dexter's hand and Nate by David's side). Both sets of brothers are two sides of the same coins. Dexter and Brian are both irreparably corrupted after witnessing their mother's brutal murder, Scarface-style. However, as Dexter is molded by Harry, Brian's demons are allowed to fester into the Ice Truck Killer. And while Nate tries to run from the funeral home that dominates their family, David tries his best to make peace with Fisher & Sons.

One of the central themes of Six Feet Under is finding purpose in life. After struggling for his entire life, David finally finds happiness with Keith and their adopted sons, continuing the tradition of Fisher & Sons, and eventually pursuing his musical interests in retirement. As he dies, he sees Keith one last time, and his final expression suggests that he's ready to die, even if there is nothing beyond. Once again, Dexter's entire story has not been told, but the end of the second season definitely entails a turning point in how Dexter will continue to define himself.

Michael C. Hall deserves a lot of credit for making these characters refreshing and real, but a lot must go to the writers and casting directors who saw his potential for such tormented characters, both in Six Feet Under (2001-2005) and Dexter (2006- ).

At it again...

Who said this?

My career -- and this campaign -- is about changing the Democratic Party. It's about changing America. And this campaign is about taking back the White House so we can have health insurance, so we can have a balanced budget, and so we can have an inclusive society where everybody believes in each other and believes in America.

Obviously, it's a trick question: it sounds like Barack Obama, but that would be too easy.

It's part of the closing to a speech Gov. Howard Dean made in Sacramento back in March 2003, the speech known by the lines "what I want to know is..." and "I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." It was a turning point in Dean's campaign, as I am reading about in Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope, a collection of essays by the people closest to the Dean campaign. The book is sort of the academic companion piece to Joe Trippi's excellent The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, and I highly recommend both.

Watching Dean's speeches from the '04 campaign, and reading the campaign post-mortems, reminds me that Dean was the first candidate I was ever excited about. Furthermore, the campaign foreshadowed the Obama phenomenon in many ways, in what has been written about elsewhere in great length; Obama has even adopted the 50 state strategy that Dean has instilled since becoming DNC chair.

Which reminded me of an idea I've had before but somehow neglected to write about in my last post (not to say that I'm the first to think of it): what about Howard Dean for VP?

For the most part, he fits the reinforcement criteria I laid out previously. Howard Dean is the consummate outsider, even as the head of the DNC. He was famously against the war since the beginning. He was the first Change Candidate. Plus, he'd make a great Vice President, relying on his experience providing health insurance and balancing budgets. An additional plus: an A rating by the NRA (since there is still no consensus on how Heller will play in November). And he doesn't leave a post that will be ceded to the GOP.

He is not without his faults. If I don't want to hear about JRE's haircuts, do I want to see The Scream ad nauseum? He's not disciplined and would surely cause some headaches every time he's on camera. As the head of the DNC, he's stuck his foot in his mouth plenty of times.

As with any presidential or VP candidate, the media will make or break you. In a way, they've already done this with Dean, so will they find a new narrative? I highly doubt it, which unfortunately makes this a non-starter.

An Obama/Dean ticket would make the netroots happy, combining the two movements that have revolutionized how we do business. But Dean's strengths as a presidential candidate are weaknesses as a VP: the direct, pragmatic message and a refusal to go along with the way things are done. So while it may not happen, at least we can look back on What Might Have Been with speeches like this:

My Vice Presidential Diatribe

I almost don't want to write a post about possible VPs, because it contradicts my general feeling about the subject: they don't really matter. Unless the VP is particularly offensive or unpopular with large parts of the population, no one votes for or against a candidate based on their VP pick. I think the CW surrounding vice presidential candidates is entirely wrong, and like most political conventional wisdom, comes from the echo-chamber and is not based in reality.

Vice presidential candidates cannot win a state, much less a whole region, simply by being from there (short of having the type of state-wide political machines of previous generations). Luckily, it looks like Obama's team gets this. And while most of the media looks for candidates that "balance the ticket," I agree with Chris Bowers that presidential candidates are better served by VPs that reinforce the campaign's narratives. For example, while an old, white Southerner with military/national security credentials makes the media cover their shorts, pairing that type of VP with Obama screams "you're right, I have no idea what I'm doing in foreign affairs, please help me." It plays right into opposing frames, and even if it's the media calling for it, they'll be the first to start asking "what the pick really means," etc.

So what criteria should we hope Obama's team uses when narrowing down the short list? Again, I mostly agree with Bowers. Obviously, the "change" meme is the strongest part of the Obama phenomenon, so someone without DC/establishment ties would be a good start. Same with being against the war from the start, or at least having the judgment to be firmly against it for the last several years. Also, I'm weary of losing a Senate seat that will be tough to regain, especially when a 60-seat supermajority, without Lieberman (I-Lieberman), is within reach. Plus, discount the idea of naming the standard bearer for (hopefully) 2016 now - a lot changes between now and then.

Also, it should go without saying that I think picking Senator Clinton would be a huge mistake. Off the top of my head: it weakens Obama, attaches Clinton baggage to the ticket, goes against "change," and validates all the ridiculous claims she made during the primary. It would be a true shit show, and luckily it looks like it won't be necessary; women are a big part of the "bounce," and the "PUMA" (Party Unity, My Ass) crowd can go vote for McCain for all I care. They are not part of the 21st century Democratic party, nor part of the winning coalition in November. Some of these concerns extend to vocal supporters of Clinton, as well - you're already on record attacking your running mate. Sorry, you picked the wrong horse.

I came up with a list of 25 people that are frequently speculated as possible VPs or members of the Short List Club. I don't plan on profiling people that don't meet the qualifications I've put forth, especially when most have the same concerns.

• DC establishment: Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Chris Dodd, fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Jack Reed, fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn. Tough to make a clean break with DC when you're firmly entrenched in it.
• Losing a Senate seat: Sen. Jim Webb, Gov./Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Bill Nelson, Sen. Sherrod Brown. We might be able to hold a few of these, but why take a chance, especially when the bench is so short already in a place like Virginia.
• Too much balancing: Gen. Wesley Clark, Gen. James Jones, Sen. Chuck Hagel. Military experience is great, but it plays into McCain's hands.
• Clinton BFF: Gov. Ed Rendell, Gov. Ted Strickland. Some people say putting a Clinton surrogate on the ticket will help heal the wounds (really?). Images of Strickland standing behind HRC as she screamed "Shame on you, Barack Obama" dance in GOP strategists' heads.

That leaves, in my opinion: John Edwards, Sen. Patty Murray (WA), and Govs. Tim Kaine (VA), Janet Napolitano (AZ), Brian Schweitzer (MT), Kathleen Sebelius (KS), and Bill Richardson (NM). Unfortunately, media obsession with the "dream ticket" and the Clintons will not let Obama pick a woman not named Clinton, even if she is the best candidate and better suited for the VP than HRC. So as much as I admire Gov. Sebelius and think she would make a perfect reinforcement pick, it's not gonna happen. So the list quickly becomes two '08 presidentials and a couple of governors.

I think Richardson is off the list because he's the type of undisciplined, foot-in-mouth guy unsuited to the VP role. Would the first African-American/Hispanic ticket be a high-risk, high-reward venture? Sure, but do low information voters even know Richardson is Hispanic? Either way, he's got a great resume, but as he often proved during the primaries, he's not ready for prime time.

How about John Edwards, would he carry the warm bucket of piss a second time? He was pretty Shermanesque but started to back off into the standard, "I'm not interested but I would serve my country" type answer recently. Paul Rosenberg has been making a case for Edwards for VP on Open Left, and while I think the poll analysis is premature, he has a point that Edwards would be both balancing and reinforcing. I think this is a real dream ticket, as in keep on dreaming. He supposedly would be happier as Attorney General, like his idol, RFK. Who knows where that puts him as a 63 year old in 2016, but it's fun to think about. I'm weary of all the trial lawyer / $400 hair cut crap that this would open the ticket to, but it's an interesting, if unlikely, prospect.

Gov. Kaine was an early supporter of Obama, but he's also the 3rd best option from a critical state. However, he is the youngest of the bunch at 50 years old, and would be a steady if unimpressive candidate to balance out the ticket. However, his three years haven't been as successful as Gov. Warner's, and leaving Richmond a year early gives the GOP a jump-start in the '09 elections. Maybe he's better suited to AG as well?

Which leaves us with my favorite at the moment, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He definitely reinforces the change/outsider theme of the campaign and his "folksy charm" is a tool that Obama doesn't have at hand. While the political impact of today's Heller decision is still unclear, it won't hurt Obama to have someone on the ticket whose stance on gun control is "you control your gun, and I'll control mine." Plus, it'd be funny if the one who speaks Arabic on an Obama-Schweitzer ticket is the latter.

On a serious note, Schweitzer's main issues are clean government and clean energy, and I doubt he'll hesitate to take a combative stance from the #2 slot. He's a progressive in Western populist clothing, and his kind of Democrat is a big part of the party's future. Check out these brief remarks - he's the real deal and he knows what Democrats have to do to win.