SAM's Presidential Endorsement: Barack Obama

In December 2007, SAM Online endorsed Barack Obama, who was running a distant second in the polls, and John McCain, whose campaign seemed all but finished, for their party's presidential nominations. Ultimately, each man was able to overcome long odds and claim victory. Since those endorsements, one candidate has proven to be more formidable than we imagined, while the other wilted under the adverse conditions his party faces.

The clarity of Barack Obama's vision for the country, as well as his intellectually honest approach to our economic crisis and energy policy earned him our endorsement in next week's election. Meanwhile, John McCain has failed to present a coherent consistent plan for dealing with the very real problems that face the nation.

In many respects, McCain was a victim of his party's past success. The Bush/ Rove playbook successfully split the country 51/49 and built a narrow coalition on extreme social conservatism, fear and distortion. The McCain of 2000, who we still optimistically consider the "real" McCain, would have done very well in this election. However, over the past two+ years running for president, McCain took the Rove- road, culminating in his pick of Sarah Palin for vice president.

The grossly under-qualified and over-matched Palin was far from the final link in a chain of startling and unfortunate choices made by McCain during the general election campaign: The William Ayers/ terrorist talk, the use of Obama's middle name by surrogates, McCain's conflicting statements on the economy, his fluid positions on major issues, his generic assurances ("I know how to catch Osama bin Laden...") and his current tactics, reminiscent of the Cold War, to scare voters with Socialism. These developments have all shown Senator McCain lacks the steady hand and political clarity the presidency requires.

Senator Obama has acted in just the opposite way. He has taken principled positions and defended them with the verve and conviction Democrats customarily lack. He's shown inner toughness in combating attacks, while maintaining dignity throughout this grueling process.

For example, in early debates during the Democratic primaries, Obama said he would be open to meeting with hostile foreign leaders. The Clinton campaign (and later the McCain camp) jumped on the statement-- believing it a serious gaffe. But Obama told his staffers then that no retraction would be given: he'd meant what he said. He's stuck to and defended that position up to now. It's one small example of the confidence, intelligence and level- headedness that Obama possesses, and it's part of what gives him the potential to be a great president.

Meanwhile, McCain, in an effort to rouse his base, ceded his campaign to a wing of the Republican party that is, as NY Times conservative columnist David Brooks put it, decidedly "anti-ideas." Mr. Brooks described Gov. Palin as the standard bearer for that section of the party and as a cancer on the Republican brand. Palin has continued the tactics of the Bush administration with attempts to divide the country between "real" and elitist America. With a strong memory of the last eight years, the American people have rejected the message, and it's an indictment of McCain that he allowed it to proceed.

In the serious times ahead of the country, we are far more comfortable with the thought of Senator Obama at the helm. He and his party are in the better position to deal with energy, health care, Iraq, the economy, and America's place in the changing world.

Powell on Board

One of the most impressive people I've ever been in the presence of, Colin Powell, made this endorsement on Meet the Press yesterday.

Letterman: Top Ten Things Overheard at Sarah Palin's Debate Camp

Top Ten Things Overheard at Sarah Palin's Debate Camp

10. "Let's practice your bewildered silence"

9. "Can you try saying 'Yes' instead of 'You betcha'?"

8. "Hey, I can see Mexico from here!"

7. "Maybe we'll get lucky and there won't be any questions about Iraq, taxes, or health care"

6. "We're screwed!"

5. "Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?"

4. "We have to wrap it up for the day -- McCain eats dinner at 4:30"

3. "Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?"

2. "John Edwards wants to know if you'd like some private tutoring in his van"

1. "Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?"

The Agony of Defeat... Again- Pic of the Day 9/29

For the second straight year, the Mets were eliminated from the playoff race on the last day of the season-- blowing a big lead in the season's final weeks.

Above is a pic from the front page of the Journal News (Westchester NY's largest paper) of me, a lifelong Mets fan, in obvious pain.

It was a bad weekend.

If It Walks Like a Duck...

My, how the mighty have fallen. The New York Times reported this morning on the status of the proposed $700 billion bailout plan, and the picture emerging from the discussions is as topsy-turvy as one can imagine. On the one hand, we have the President, proposing that Congress grant him even more extraordinary powers so that he can handle this particular issue with the economy. On that same hand, it appears we have the Democrats, eager to get this piece of legislation under their belts, but maintaining that certain provisions are included so that it's not strictly a deal for Wall Street, by Wall Street and of Wall Street. In the end, though, it might be just that. The Times quotes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying "It (the bailout) will happen because it has to happen." Such an impending tone makes one realize just how badly the financial sector has infiltrated the body politic. We're going to bailout banks that got in way over their heads irresponsibly because we have to. Nice.

On the opposite side of this battle are the Republicans, and this is what makes this current political climate so perplexing. The Republicans, long known for being Wall Street back scratchers, tax cutting everything from capital gains to C.E.O. bonuses, are now staunchly against the proposal. They find it absurd that tax-payer dollars ought to be spent in an endeavor to stabilize the financial sector, while little is done to curb spending in other areas. Of course, this kind of fiscal restraint was not evident during the first six years of the Bush administration, when they cut taxes, increased earmarks substantially and endorsed a war whose strategy was so flawed, that a major consequence is the vast sums being spent on it: some $10 billion per month.

Of course, this is no indictment of the corporate-Democratic paradox, nor of Republican hypocracy. They exist because it's the nature of the beast. This is the ultimate low of a presidency. Mr. Bush believes that history will come to his side, like it has for President Harry Truman. The Korean War killed Mr. Truman's presidency; Bush's lack of leadership has killed his. Truman did stubborn things like integrate the army, then the federal government, and endorsed the new state of Israel, all with significant opposition from his own staff, no less. Bush demanded loyalty at all cost, and held over his opponents a mandate that was as paper thin as his courage: because he could always find a way to garner fifty one percent, he could always win.

Democrats would come into the fold because some will lack the courage to stand their ground. Republicans would come for the obvious reasons, because it's their gravy train. Well, it's a good thing the American public can smell ineptitude, because in 2006 they fired the GOP, and essentially nutored Mr. Bush. His leadership style is so ineffective, he cannot even get his party in line in a moment of economic peril. Where Clinton signaled to Democrats that centrism is the quality needed for long term survival, Mr. Bush demonstrated that all you need is a simple majority. Where President Reagan obtained Democratic support in order to cut taxes in 1981, Mr. Bush used fear and the fresh memory of a tragedy to get the nation into as serious a circumstance one could find itself: war. And now we have a financial crisis even the most cautious observers call traumatic. "An end of an era on Wall Street", they say. And Mr. Bush, with his limp clout, trying to pull together a coalition to pass a vital law, cannot even get Wall Street's employees, his fellow Republicans, in line. January 20th cannot come soon enough.

SNL: McCain Ad Wars

Still in the midst of an imposed drought comes a quick gulp of water:

SNL's take on McCain's ads, which have taken more than a few liberties (such as portraying Obama's vote in favor of a bill that- in part- provided funding for a program educating kindergarteners on sexual abuse as, "Obama spent money on sex- ed for 5 year olds").



An interesting note: former SNL writer and cast member, and current US Senate candidate Al Franken reportedly came up with the premise of this sketch, which was then written out by SNL's head writer, Seth Meyers.

The Sad Saga

I've been asked to stop posting for a while by my employer, but happily, that doesn't mean I have to stop altogether. Because, every year around this time, I'll work in some non-political posts about my favorite team's collapse in the baseball standings. This year is no different, except I'm going to use to words of blogger David Lozo.

His post is decent, but it's the picture at the top that gets me.

The Sad, Sad Saga of Your Average N.Y. Mets Fan

There is nothing funnier yet, at the same time, sadder than a New York Mets fan. It’s like watching a six-car pileup where everyone dies, but everyone is dressed as Star Wars characters, so part of you laughs. But mostly, you feel bad for these desperate fools who have a harder time staying on an even keel than a meth addict.

Ever since the Mets had a seven-game lead with 17 games to play in 2007, I have been conducting a study of the New York Mets fan. I have charted emotions for close to a full year now, and I think it’s time to reveal my findings. What follows is a recounting of the emotional highs and lows of Mets fans for the last 350 days or so.

Sept. 12, 2007: “Dude, we’re seven games up. I can’t wait for the playoffs. We’re going to avenge that loss to the Cardinals and win the World Series. Willie Randolph has been superb and Tom Glavine really should get his option picked up.”

Sept. 30, 2007: “I hope Tom Glavine dies. Clearly he was a double agent for the Braves. Seven runs in an inning? I hate the Mets. We should fire Willie and start fresh.’

Jan. 30, 2008: “We traded for Johan Santana? Noooooo. Get out! That’s awesome! That guarantees us the NL East, and at worst a World Series trip. What a deal! Omar is a genius! Willie’s going to get us there!”

April 29, 2008: “I know Billy Wagner blew the save because of the error, but I don’t trust that guy.”

May 6, 2008: “Why does Carlos Delgado see the field? Can’t that guy retire already?”

May 26, 2008: “Please fire Willie already. This Mike Pelfrey character is a complete bust.”

May 29, 2008: “It’s not like it’s Willie’s fault.”

June 10, 2008: “OK, Willie needs to go.”

June 13, 2008: “Seriously, I hope we get someone for Delgado next season.”

June 16, 2008, 2:30 a.m.: “You know, I think Willie’s got this thing figured out
now.”

June 16, 2008, 3:45 a.m.: “Good riddance. Willie was killing us.”

June 24, 2008: “Jerry Manuel isn’t making things better.”

July 4, 2008: “Johan Santana just is not a big-game pitcher. He can’t finish what he
starts. Such a bum.”

July 6, 2008: “I know we’re 3.5 out with 74 games to go, but this team is done. No chance.”

July 17, 2008: “What a great move by the Mets to put Manuel in charge. I think a World Series is a real possibility now.”

July 19, 2008: “We can’t even beat the Reds. How can we possibly win the division?”

July 20, 2008: “If Wagner is done, we are screwed. That guy is lights out.”

July 25, 2008: “Mike Pelfrey should be getting some consideration for the Cy Young.”

August 3, 2008: “We are so done.”

August 10, 2008: “Mike Pelfrey better not be on the postseason roster.”

August 17, 2008: “If my neighbors think I’m loud now, just wait till they hear me when the Mets are playing in October.”

August 24, 2008: “We’re not going anywhere with this bullpen.”

Sept. 1, 2008: “Carlos Delgado is the NL MVP.”

Sept. 2, 2008: “This Luis Ayala guy is pretty awesome. He can close for us in the playoffs.”

Sept. 5, 2008: “We’re going to choke away the division again.”

Sept. 6, 2008: “I never said they were going to the World Series.”

Sept. 7, 2008, 4:45 p.m.: “We’re so done. Fire everyone.”

Sept. 7, 2008, 11:30 p.m.: “Johan Santana is a big-game pitcher. We’re going all the way.”

Sept. 10, 2008: “Hey, can I take off a few days in October? No one has off the day of Game 7 of the World Series, and I want to make sure I can watch it.”

This morning: “Our bullpen is a nightmare. I hope they miss the playoffs. Just give the division to the Phillies.”

Clinton/ Palin

Probably the best political sketch in nearly ten years.

Flip-Flops, All for the Price of an Oval Office

Mom: So since when do the Republicans care about women?

Me: What?  What do you mean?

Mom: Well, they seem to care a lot about women and I thought they never wanted women outside of the home.

And thus is the new political order of the day.  A universe where a casual observer, like my mom - citizen since '72 (ah, '72), can be confounded by a seismic shift in GOP talking points: feminism.  Yes, faux-feminism is the new Black, and the designer is Senator John McCain.  He tailors his chic centrism in a flowering couture of social conservatism being fiercely worn by none other than Alaska's great governor, Sarah Palin.  Holy wow!

It's the Democrats who are keeping that glass ceiling in place.  It's the Democrats who don't want women to progress.  Yes, it's the Democrats who want to return to 1918.  The party of Eleanor Roosevelt has turned into the party of Rush Limbaugh, only Rush doesn't want any part of it because he's a feminist now.  

That's right, folks: To want Sarah Palin to win the Vice Presidancy is to be for Women's Rights.  It's to be for a woman to have the right to have government deny her the right to choose an abortion.  It's to be for women having the right to not have the explicit right to fight side-by-side with men in combat.  It's to be for women having the right to be punished for working and having a child - at the same time, no less.  It's to be for our future.

Sarah Palin wanted to ban books from her local library, wants to be the special announcer at next year's Summer Slam when Creationism and Evolution meet, and once vied for round three at Bull Run while she was part of a small secessionist movement ("small" is relative, because nothing but the landscape's big in Alaska - it just ain't Texas).  These are all things that are as American as moose murder, and women should be ashamed if they're not proud of this.  Every women needs to learn to cross check, because Sarah Palin took her shots from the goons of all shapes and sizes for The Cause.  Every lady needs to learn to not plan their pregnancies, because Sarah Palin has five kids, will have five more, and will pass legislation making it legal to give birth well past menopause - God's willing notwithstanding.

James - that narrow-minded, right-wing chauvinist - Carville wrote an incendiary piece in the Financial Times, that bastion of Female Oppression, about how Mr. McCain has affected his party with the Sarah Palin nomination.  Read it not to see how the GOP has given up national security as their centerpiece.  Read it not to learn how flip-flopping is only flip-flopping if you're a former liberal like John F Kerredy - I mean Kerry.  Read it to see what America's up against:  Barack Obama's Islamist change, one that we just can't afford (because utility prices are insane!)

Faux

Jon Stewart outdid himself in this segment... there are no words for the kind of hypocrisy you're about to see, but at least someone called it out:

Uh-Oh: Pic of the Day 9/4

During last night's well- received speech, GOP VP nominee Gov. Sarah Palin cited her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" pork barrel project as evidence of her independent streak. Problem is, Palin was actually for the bridge before she was against it, as is evident in this photo. The $400m bridge connected a small Alaska town to a hardly used airport, saving users from having to ride a $5 ferry.

“Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.” - Ketchikan Daily News 9/2006

Just a guess, but this probably won't be the last time we see this photo...

100 Years or 1 Year - No Real Difference

The Financial Times has a compelling piece about the Iraq War and the "time horizons" being discussed between the Bush Administration and that of Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq. The report by Demetri Sevastopulo quotes General David Patraeus, top commander of coalition forces in Iraq, as suggesting the possibility that U.S. forces can begin redeployment from Baghdad.  He cautioned his suggestion by alluding to conditions staying as they are now, with violence down and peaceful political dialogues persisting.  Still, American soldiers leaving Baghdad, as the article puts it, "would be highly symbolic given the scale of violence that gripped the city in 2006 and 2007."

Now Senator McCain will surely credit his backing of "The Surge" as playing the pivotal role in the new status quo, while Senator Obama will suggest that the Iraqis want us out as much as Americans do, lulls in violence notwithstanding.  What's striking is the frankness with which Gen. Patraeus discusses the mid to long-term future of our involvement in Iraq, and how the administration is not hovering over him insisting on the use of vague, ambiguous terms that carry no consequence.  Obama's at least given details as to how he'd leave Iraq.  Can't wait to hear Mac's response to this.  Fifty years or one hundred, we hav- what?  We're leaving already?  Well, is it with honor?

Friedman on ET

Thomas Friedman wrote a great piece in today's New York Times on what's at stake in terms of energy in the presidential election.

John McCain prided himself on being the greenest Republican in Washington; however, his "drill drill drill" rhetoric and selection of running mate Sarah Palin contradicts his crafted image. Freedman quotes Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, who states:

“Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up. One of the unbranded cattle — a wizened old maverick name John McCain — finally got roped. Then they branded him with a big ‘Lazy O’ — George Bush’s brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.

“One of McCain’s last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ She’s the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her.”

Friedman goes on to point out that the energy technology (ET, as he calls it) will surpass information technology (IT) as the most important and profitable industry in the world. We must remember, he argues, that the country that comes to dominate it will reap the substantial benefits. That means investment in and a commitment to new technology.

As Friedman writes: "The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not."

Letterman: Top 10 DNC Pick Up Lines

It may be a few days late, but here are Letterman's (a bit on the risqué side)...

Top Ten Democratic National Convention Pickup Lines

10. Wanna form a more perfect union?

9. Something's rising and it's not the national debt

8. I'm stiffer than John Kerry

7. Let's go someplace and release our delegates

6. Care to join the wife and me for a little 'bipartisanship'?

5. I'll make you scream like Howard Dean

4. Now that's what I call a stimulus package

3. I'm gonna Barack your world

2. Wanna pretend we're Republicans and have gay bathroom sex?

1. Hi, I'm John Edwards

And here are some that failed to make the cut:

• Play your cards right and I'll get you in to hear the speech by Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes

• How'd you like to be on the cover of National Enquirer?

• Has anyone ever said you look like a young Madeline Albright?

• Where does a guy go to get Spitzer'd?

• Wanna see a nude photo of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson?

Palin To Be GILF! Teen Daughter Expecting "Illigitimate" Child!

NYT.com is reporting that the daughter of Governess Sarah Palin (R-AK), GOP Veep nominee, is pregnant. Bristol Palin, The governess' daughter, is expected to keep the child, and CNN is reporting that she will marry the father. (I'd provide more information about him, but the scumbag move on my part can't be done until the scumbag move of recklessly getting this possible minor's information is completed.) The GOP is expected to rally around the soon-to-be teen mother.

How ironic. The GOP makes a living out of making it seem as though some young, poor lady who has a child out-of-wedlock represents the biggest socialist parasite in our nation's economy. Yet, what come's with a McCain-Palin win? A new member to said club.

WIld Card, to say the least.

In the wake of her improbable selection to be John McCain's running mate, just about everyone now knows the name Sarah Palin. Yes, she’s inexperienced (under two years as governor of a state that literally has a smaller population than Columbus, Ohio). Yes, she has a relatively modest educational background for a VP candidate (BA in journalism from University of Idaho). And oh yea, she earned the nickname “Barracuda” for her tenacious play on the high school basketball court (Thanks Fox News for that tidbit). Is she one of the most qualified people in the Republican party to be VP? Absolutely not. By all accounts, this a straight political move on McCain's part in an attempt to win over some former Hillary supporters.

Why would McCain pick Palin in particular? For starters she's young, energetic, reform-minded, and has an approval rating of 80% in Alaska. As a mother of five who is married to her high school sweetheart, she very much embodies classic Middle American values that should play well in many key swing states. Ideologically, she will help sheer up McCain’s conservative base. She supports teaching creationism in schools, gun rights, staunchly favors domestic oil and gas exploration, and is pro-life.

Though this pick might be a hit with conservatives, it’s not a choice that's going to go over real well with the independents that McCain has been courting. McCain has criticized Obama for putting his own political interest over the interest of the country by asserting “Obama would rather lose a war in order to win an election campaign”. Now McCain has picked Palin, for reasons of political expediency, over several other potential running mates significantly more qualified to take the helm as President if necessary. Also, McCain's argument that Obama is unelectable because of his lack of experience now loses practically all its effectiveness.

The real question is whether Palin can reach across party lines and draw enough women into the McCain camp. If she can do so while also satisfying the conservative base, then obviously this could go down as shrewd political move. I have my doubts, but the Republicans have demonstrated a tremendous sense of political instinct over the last two presidential elections. Time will tell.

Is this some sort of hilarious joke?

I wanted to ignore John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President out of reverence for last night's speech. But the move deserves at least 10 quick observations:

1. There are 3 types of vice president, and before Al Gore there was only 1. Gore was a trusted adviser, in the room when many key decisions were made. His opinion mattered. Dick Cheney ran the country. Before 1992, vice presidents had two functions: don't embarrass the administration and don't get in the way. Joe Biden is a pick in the Gore mold, Sarah Palin is a pick in the Charles Curtis mold.


2. For those of you familiar with sports and gambling: The over/ under on the number of words John McCain ever says to Sarah Palin in his entire life: 95


3. It was a political move, and that's OK, we understand that. But what is inexcusable, is that yesterday John McCain chose a woman whose experience outside of 2 years as governor was as mayor of an Alaskan village of 9,000. Yesterday also happened to be Sen. McCain's 72nd birthday.


4. Say what you will-- Sarah Palin is not a bad looking lady.


5. The idea that women will vote for John McCain because he put a woman on the ballot is deeply offensive.


6. The notion that Sarah Palin can be compared to Hillary Clinton is insulting.


7. I guarantee those glasses are fake.


8. The GOP wanted a woman, but they also wanted someone who would satisfy the right-wing (pro-life, "unsure" about global warming). So, it's no wonder they had to search so far, wide and weird to find someone to fit the bill.


9. Barack Obama has shown faith in Americans' ability to see beyond ploys, and willingness to choose optimism in the face of doubt. Meanwhile, John McCain has made the exact opposite wager.


10. The number one criterion in choosing a VP, by definition, is whether or not the individual can be an effective president if necessary. Barack Obama's case for superior judgment was made a whole lot easier yesterday.

Best. Speech. Ever.

Apologies in advance: I generally hate when writers write in the first person, and inject themselves into their observations. But tonight I can't help it. I'm pretty fired up. See if you can tell...

Night before last, I was pissed. So angry, that I stayed up until about 5AM (I don't start work for another few days, so I can afford that on a Wednesday night) and wrote the diatribe that you will find below the very eloquent post written by my venerable former roommate, CP Coleta.

The first three nights of the convention convinced me that the Democrats would blow this election. I watched in horror as Republican talking points dominated their speeches, and their punches were pulled back. Slowly but surely, I felt, the election was slipping through our fingers.

But I was wrong.

I was wrong because I severely underestimated Barack Obama. Watching him deliver that speech last night was like watching the end of Usual Suspects. You're sitting there thinking you know what's happening, that the movie is drawing to a safe conclusion. But then that coffee cup shatters and a rug is pulled out from under you, and soon you're blown away.

Well, last night blew me away.

It's like he was toying with us, making this convention look like the last two, knowing it would make his mark all the more dramatic.

It's like he was toying with them, lulling Republicans into a false sense of security that his candidacy and campaign was just John Kerry 2.0.

When I was at my most desperate, two nights ago, I considered that he may have been leaving the heavy lifting for himself, and that he'd form a thematic, disciplined offensive in his speech. But I quickly brushed the thought aside. Not his style, I thought, that's what Biden was for.

I was dead wrong.

Last night, Barack Obama proved himself what believers have long claimed him to be: A post- partisan leader with unmatched skill, passion and eloquence, ready and able to move this country into a new century. To move us forward philosophically, culturally and, yes, racially.

Every four years, Americans lament a major failing of our two party system: "Is this the best we can do?" "It's always a choice between the lesser of two evils." "I wish we had a third option."

Not this year-- the indecisive and dissatisfied no longer have that crutch.

America: This is the best we can do.

A bi-racial son of the middle class, who has proven his mettle over a near- 2 year campaign, and his judgment and character over decades in public service. He's earned the support of millions of ordinary Americans, and financed his historic campaign with their meager donations.

A week ago, I somewhat longed for a candidate Clinton, who would hit back harder against McCain's aggression. (It's documented in my "Time to get Tough" post of 8/22). But I couldn't imagine Hillary in last night's spot. It's no slight, but she's not packing Mile High Stadium with 84,000+ and that kind of energy. No, her convention would have been an aggressive, slash and burn battle against the Republicans, the likes of which we've come to expect, and for which Democrats have thirsted since 2000.

The genius of Obama and his campaign avoids that. It's aggressive but not destructive; it takes the bluster and hypocrisy of his opponent (be it Clinton or McCain) and turns it against itself. He uses the petty and divisive attacks to prove his point and discredit the messenger. In so doing, Obama ends the vicious cycle of the politics of personal destruction, and makes an election about actual issues.

And that's ground on which Democrats can actually win.

Perhaps the most moving and profound part of it all is that in the end, Senator Obama has displayed unmatched faith in the American people. He believes that if given the opportunity they will see through the tricks and won't follow the BS. His campaign is the fairer and more principled alternative for which Americans have always claimed to long.

Now, it is up to the American people to reward his good faith. This November, we will get the president we deserve. It will either be the dawning of an era full of amazing potential, or we will elect a man who has sold himself out at every turn to chase the Oval Office.

We will entrust a candidate who won on the strength of his message, policies and record, or one who, to curry favor, now opposes legislation he drafted, and stands alongside men he once denounced to please the very people who slandered him.

John McCain has been a good senator, and given a lot to our country. I admire that. But in the last few years, he's proven to stand for very little, even capitulating to President Bush on what was once his most deeply important issue. He'll do or say anything.

We've had presidents like John McCain before. We'll have them again. But right now, we have a chance at something new.

Something better.
-------------------------------------

I need to say more about the speech itself.

First let me quote libertarian, former Nixon adviser and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan:

"The best convention speech I've ever heard [in 48 years]."



Also, let me just list some of the specifics of what an Obama presidency will look like:

1. End dependence on Middle East Oil in 10 years by tapping gas reserves, investing in coal, nuclear and alternative fuels; increase fuel efficiency standards in domestic autos
   
2. Tax cuts for 95% of working families
3. Tax breaks to corporations that keep jobs in US, not those that out-source
4. Recruit new teachers with higher salaries, but mandate higher standards and accountability
5. Award students who serve for a year with college tuition aid
6. Universal health care
7. Change bankruptcy laws to protect employee pensions before CEO bonuses

There was much more, but I just want to touch one last thing:

Obama did an excellent job of articulating what it means to be a Democrat. Make no mistake, this was not a bleeding heart speech. Buchanan himself called it a "deeply centrist speech" (that right there should placate independents and short- circuit the Republican machine-- but it won't).

So here are some of my personal favorite lines:

"We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy."

"Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close."

"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

"For over two decades, [McCain's] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work."

I could copy and paste until the sun comes up. In fact, I practically have. But I'll end by writing that I'm no longer nervous.

In my last post, I wrote that Democrats had asked for a verdict without supplying evidence. Last night, the evidence was laid out and the case has been made fully, forcefully and fairly.

Now, the only question is whether or not the system works.

The Godfather

In the historic presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the issue of race has been downplayed with a strong purpose, and rightfully so. The Obama campaign has gone to great lengths to assure all Americans that his is a campign of historic proportion because of the change he wants to bring and the style with which he delivers his message. It's not about his race, for folks shouldn't vote on such a superficial basis. It's not about class, for the American project is one of endless possibilities, not a caste system. And it shouldn't be about gender, or military experience, or familial lineage, or...

Yet, on the 45th anniversary of probably the most American speech, race can't escape us, no matter how much Mr. Obama tries, and that shouldn't be such a bad thing. But what strikes this moment as so special for me is not that today is the 45th anniversary of Revereand Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, but that it falls on the 45th anniversary-plus one day of the death of W.E.B. DuBois.

Dr. DuBois is perhaps my favorite intellectual of any era, because of his keen ability to take in the society he lived in, analyze all that it offered (and systematically neglected), and synthesize that information to come to a conclusion no honest man or woman can refute outright with full intellect. His was the fight that laid the groundwork for the likes of Thurgood Marshall and Rev. King, the former taking the legal route to bring America to its rightful place, while the latter would lead a moral revolution that would cost him his life, a price he was more than willing to pay.

Dr. DuBois wrote: "If the great battle of human right against poverty, against disease, against color prejudice is to be won, it must be won, not in our day, but in the day of our children's children. Ours is the blood and dust of battle". Barack Obama is experiencing the fruits of that fight. He, like myself, has been fortunate to view systematic discrimination only through the memories of past soldiers, those who bared the insult of the back door, the figurative emaciation through the use of "boy" towards men, and the many other humiliating experiences Jim Crow wrought. It's the fight that DuBois, Wells, Malcolm, Woodson, Dunbar, Baldwin, and the many other warriors had to endure, so that I could be privileged enough to not be bothered with the back of the bus.

Of course, Dr. DuBois didn't die in America. In fact, he didn't even die an American. He gave up his fight, assured that the White structure that maintained the "racial caste system" would never yield to the suffering minorities. He moved to Ghana, became a citizen of his host nation, and died peacefully at the age of ninety-five. So while Mr. Obama strategically downplays race, Dr. DuBois, and the like, should never be downplayed, for the freedom of their sons' sons and daughters' daughters is as true a victor as one could be on this night - superdelegates, notwithstanding.

Getting Nervous

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not watch all of last night's convention coverage. With the Mets in the fight of their lives, I had to flip back and forth. But I doubt that made any difference on my opinion, and I've since gone back and read or watched the speeches...

I am officially worried.

This entire summer, I predicted a blow-out. I guaranteed Barack Obama would shatter 300 electoral votes, sweep an impressive majority into Congress, and wield the "political capital" President Bush so pompously claimed in 2004.

But now, I'm worried about my party's November chances.

This week, Democrats haven't driven the final nail into the Bush Administration's coffin, or fortified their position as the stronger party for the next generation. They've only taken us half way.

All week in Denver, primetime speakers have stated the obvious: We cannot afford four more years of Bush policies. The American dream now seems out of reach. Barack Obama can change the direction of the country.

So while the speeches were good, and each major speaker accomplished the goal handed down by the 24- hour news media, there was very little overall connection to the overarching theme of why our country is so desperate for change. Instead they answered GOP talking points: what is Barack's story? does Michelle love her country? will Dems unite?

The speakers offered up worn phrases mixed with the most tired of political devices-- the encounter story. You know what I'm talking about:

"Once I met a woman with one leg, no house and the Clap..."

"... that's when I met Joe, who works 8 jobs, sleeps a half hour a month, and makes just $12k/ year..."

"An old Army vet told me the only thing he loves more than the American flag is apple pie, and the only thing he loves more than apple pie is a bald eagle carrying the American flag in his talons, and the only thing he loves more than that is if the eagle served him a heaping slice of apple pie in the Grand Canyon..."

(Is it just me, or is that stuff is entirely ineffective? I find it forced and disingenuous. And even if those encounters really happened, Democrats need to speak to the middle class, not the guy with no legs and VD.)

What was entirely lacking was meat to back up the words. When President Clinton was in office, his speeches were littered with statistics that illustrated our country's progress. Wow, you'd think, we're doing really well. He did some of that last night, but in all there was not nearly enough.

The only hard facts or numbers that stick out from this week is the price of gas, which we already knew, and may not even be a political winner thanks to confusion over the (lack of) benefits to drilling.

Of the four major speakers (Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden), President Clinton had the best appeal to average folks:

"In this decade, American workers have consistently given us rising productivity. That means, year after year, they work harder and produce more.

Now, what did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-fourth as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty, and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s...

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding debt; from over 22 million new jobs to just 5 million; from increasing working families' incomes to nearly $7,500 a year to a decline of more than $2,000 a year; from almost 8 million Americans lifted out of poverty to more than 5.5 million driven into poverty; and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all this evidence, their candidate is actually promising more of the same."

That is what we needed, but we didn't get enough. In making their closing argument, Democrats asked for the verdict without presenting the evidence.

In the minds of too many Americans, that comes across as America- bashing. Democrats have the charge of any party out of power, speak to the virtue of the country and enrage the electorate that its been so badly mismanaged. It's an awkward task made easier because this administration's mismanagement has been so blatant. But Dems didn't remind the public why we're so passionate this time around. The focus was on shorting out Republican attacks instead of building our case against the other side.

Two oil men took over the government and ran up record oil profits. Along the way they tanked the economy, re-wrote the Constitution and put unqualified friends in positions of public trust. Millions have suffered because of their incompetence-- that is this president's legacy. But Democrats shied away from addressing it explicitly, favoring general language instead.

It could just be the lawyer in me, or the Carville- influence. Maybe I'm just more into the pointed style. But as I watched the speeches, I had to remind myself why I don't like this president or the Republican party; why I believe the country is on the wrong track. Those are memories and connections I shouldn't have to make, the Democrats should be walking voters slowly down memory lane of the last eight years.

Maybe Obama pulls it off tonight. Maybe it won't even matter. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe, but I'm officially worried.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention John Kerry's solid speech on John McCain and international relations: