The Denver convention is meant to to showcase Barack Obama’s life story but also to unleash attacks against John McCain, tying him with President Bush. This first night successfully and enthusiastically did the former thanks to powerful speeches delivered by Michelle Obama and Teddy Kennedy; but it did not truly attempt the latter - despite the promises that the 2008 convention would not be repeat of John Kerry’s.
Sure, this is only one night and it is important for voters to get introduced to the Obamas given that the main danger facing Democrats this year is that the GOP succeeds in painting their candidate as an unacceptable (in some sense foreign, radical and elitist) choice. But in 2004, Democrats also thought that their most important task was to protect Kerry from Republican attacks, and the result was that the election became all about the Democratic candidate.
Given the year’s fundamentals, the GOP will only be able to do that if it distracts voters from their distrust of Bush. Thus, Democrats ought to relentlessly remind voters of Bush’s record and associate McCain to it. There wasn’t much of that tonight at all, though you can be sure that the Republican convention will have a lot of red meat every step of the way. Bush-bashing could go a long way towards uniting registered Democrats behind their party’s nominee: reminding Dems (and Clinton supporters) who are reluctant to support Obama that they hate Bush and thus should reject McCain without consideration could be as (if not more) effective than anything else that happens during the convention.
Tonight, Michelle Obama and Teddy Kennedy had the most important speeches, but should former GOP Rep. Leach have been given such a prominent slot? And was Senator McCaskill the best choice to lead into the networks’ primetime coverage? [Update: I am certainly not suggesting that Michelle should have gone on the attack, as that could have been disastrous. But her speech started at 10:35pm. The first part of the primetime slot could have been used for a more fiery indictment of the Bush Administration.] Mark Warner, tomorrow’s keynote speaker, has already said that his address would not be an attack speech; the Democrats’ keynote speech will thus resemble Obama 2004 more than Zell Miller 2004. While the former won raving praises, the latter fired up the GOP against John Kerry.
That said, Democrats have a lot to be happy about as well. First, Ted Kennedy’s appearance (which was uncertain until the last minutes due to his health condition) heightened the night’s emotional power. After a tribute devoted to him, Kennedy emerged with his wife to pass the torch to the Illinois Senator. “Nothing, nothing is going to keep me away from this special gathering tonight,” he said. “I have come here tonight to stand with you, to change America, to restore its future, to rise to our best ideals and to elect Barack Obama president of the United States.” Kennedy and the decades of history that his speech invoked had the potential to rally Democrats around one of their party’s most beloved statesmen by invoking the memories of the Democrats’ past heroes.
And then came Michelle Obama, whose speech was powerful beyond expectations. She took the stage, introduced by her brother, and facing a clear challenge: To portray herself and the Obamas as the typical and familiar all-American family and show that they have grown out of working-class families to work on behalf of working-class families. In other words, convince voters that she and her husband are anything but an enigma, that they are the most familiar form of the American Dream.
Her script by itself made a powerful case, but her delivery was impeccable. She spoke more like an actress delivering a monologue than a politician reading a teleprompter, and her gestures and intonations were wonderfully theatrical (I mean that in a very good way). Her emotion was palpable, and she conveyed her emotion, her love for her husband and her concern for the future of her children (”Their future - and all our children’s future - is my stake in this election”) better than is expected from someone who is said to have been reluctant to become such a public figure.
No where was she more more moving than when she talked about her own upbringing and her father (”And I come here as a daughter - raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue collar city worker, and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me”). That was meant to anchor her as someone voters can relate to, as was her description of the values she and Barack share, values that are identifiable with the “American” way of life:
And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.
And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children - and all children in this nation - to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.
Whether all of that will be enough, of course, will be determined in the coming days and weeks. But what we can say is that the script and delivery were as good as Democrats could have hoped for. Michelle Obama even cited the name of a certain New York Senator as someone who worked hard every day on behalf of the American people. “People like Hillary Clinton,” she said, “who put those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling.” The crowd celebrated with thunderous applause.
Bringing Clinton supporters back in the Democratic camp is, after all, the convention’s crucial task - more urgent than bashing Bush and defining Obama. And that will be what we will be watching for tomorrow night, when Hillary Clinton takes center stage for what is sure to be one of the week’s defining moments. For now, the night had things Democrats should celebrate (a strong introduction to the Obama family) and things that I believe they should be worried about (the lack of red meat).
I am concerned about the small amount of attacks, but there was some of that in Nancy Pelosi’s Claire McCaskill’s speeches.
I have to disagree with the idea that being light on red meat on Day 1 wasn’t a good idea. Just imagine the GOP attacks on Michelle if that had happened. Even if she hadn’t done the attacking herself, the GOP’s push back would have allowed them to have a voice in the media conversation. Instead, they were ignored and all the focus was on Michelle and Teddy.
Now, obviously, the next few days will be far different and, if they weren’t, I would agree with you that it’s a problem, but it would have severely undermined Michelle’s vital (re)introduction to place a heavier emphasis on the attack.
You know, you don’t need to attack every second. The GOP’s piss poor record shoots that party in the foot every minute of every day, all on it’s own.
The “lack of red meat” comments are all coming from Clinton’s key supporters, like James Carvell. They know that Bill & Hillary Clinton have red meat speaches coming up in the next two days and this will allow them to imply; without actually saying it; that she would have been the best to take on McCain.
The story for this news cycle is the Michelle Obama speech and a Zell Miller style rant, by whomever,would have stepped all over her message. I expect the next two days to be McCain bashing (lots of red meat) and then Obama’s speech will have a positive uplifting tone.
I have to disagree. The Party should be relentless in its attack of Bush/McCain from day one. Throw caution to the wind, if you must, Obama is not far enough ahead in the polls to ride the wave of popular support, buoyed by good feelings and pretty speeches. We need to know why and how we should support him, and pointing out how terrible life is under Bush and how awful it will be with McCain is a start. If Obama was way ahead in the polls, I’d say let every night be a repeat of Monday’s performance. But Obama is about where Kerry was in the polls four years ago, and we know what happened to him. Let’s not repeat history.
Chris and fritz,
I am certainly not suggesting that Michelle Obama should have been the one going on the attack. That would indeed have been disastrous. But she started speaking at 10:35pm. The first half of the primetime hour could have been used for a much more fiery indictment of the Bush Administration and the Republicans.
Well the first night of the convention is to introduce the candiate, so in my mind it doesn’t matter that there wasn’t any attacks. I expect that will change tonight, as Hillary Clinton will bash Bush and McCain as way to show that to vote for McCain out of spite of Obama would be a massive mistake.
I say that the first night of the GOP convention will be similar to the first night of the Dem convention. Maybe they will do more attacks than what the Dems did, but George W. Bush speaks the first night, and be frank, there is a reason why McCain is having him speak on the first night and not in the middle of the GOP convention. If Bush attacks Obama (as he probably will) then the Dems will have a field day with that. I think the last three days of both conventions will be what is most important.
Also while Mark Warner may be reluctant to go on the attack, Hillary’s speech will be more important and people will be watching that more.
We can look at the speakers and see who’s going to be delivering red meat: Bill and Hillary, and (and this is part of the reason he was picked) Joe Biden. I’m gonna buy a new bottle of Heinz 57 just to be ready for it:)
Bashing Bush? As if Americans don’t already know he’s a horrible president and the country is going in the wrong direction.
Headline:
Barack Obama calls John McCain “out of touch” on the economy.
Talk about a milquetoast comment. Obama will not win any election by using this sort of rhetoric.
We have heard all this genteel critiquing from Senators to their colleagues before, and it moves no votes.