The Dems open with a contrast

|
(18)

You couldn't have scripted it better (and that's what it was, carefully scripted). The contrast between the mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro, grandson of immigrants, child of a working-class family, and the first lady, Michelle Obama, daughter of a disabled blue-collar public employee, teling their life stories just reminded everyone about the life of that other candidate. Yeah, the one who told students to borrow money from their parents to start a business.

Castro was good because of who he is, and he's a fine speaker, and the HuffPo  thinks he's been vaulted into the national spotlight, but this wasn't a speech that's going to change anyone's life. Not like the keynote eight years ago. It was good campaign speech, some nice slaps at the Republicans, and a good line: The GOP wants to take back America -- back to what and to when?

But Michelle Obama stole the show. I was listening in the car with my daughter, on the way home from her gymnastics class, and Viv -- who generally tolerates nothing on the radio except Katy Perry and Lady Gaga and Kesha and J. Lo and like that -- was actually quiet for a few minutes, and at one point asked me the same question I was asking myself:

Why isn't she the president?

But she isn't and her husband is, and we all have a lot of issues with him, and I'm not here to defend this administration. But the stark contrasts between the candidates and the conventions can't be ignored. Davey D, who's doing an awesome job of covering both conventions, talked about walking around the RNC and not seeing any black people (Colorlines looked carefully and found exactly 89) and from his perspective (and he's certainly not a Democratic synchophant) the DNC was worlds away.

By most accounts, Mitt Romney didn't get much bounce from his nomination speech, but most accounts -- that is, the national polls -- mean very little at this point. The next election will be won or lost in about six swing states, and the GOP clearly thinks it will be a "base" election, that there are enough right-wing types in those states to make the difference if they're motivated. I don't know if Obama can say or do anything that will change that.

But for those handful of undecided voters, most of whom are not rich, the Dems have a tailored message. And so far, it's working well.

 

Comments

non-white speakers, you don't like Romney and you think you'll vote Democrat.

I'm shocked, as I am sure is everyone else. But is that really the total depth of your analysis?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

Wow, a talented Ivy League attorney wowed you with silver tongued circumlocutions, that's never happened before, what could possibly go wrong?

Posted by marcos on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

you sometimes bring up some thought provoking points on these threads, but it is a shame that you consistently come across as a self-righteous, know-it-all prick

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

Of course, these people speak from the heart, they are not acting up a storm to convince voters to re up their commission so that they can continue to perpetrate war crimes and further empower the banking elites, no not at all, they really, really care about women.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

Maybe that was not so much as contrast as a lack of brightness?

Posted by marcos on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

The joke:

Bill and Hillary are driving around Arkansas and stop for gas. Hillary recognizes the attendant and gasps "Wow, I used to date that guy in high school".

Bill responds smugly "So I guess if you had married him you'd be hanging out around this gas station a lot nowadays".

"No", Hillary answers quickly. "If I married him then HE would have become President".

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

Obama’s Kill List – The president claims the authority to assassinate anyone, including U.S. citizens, at any time anywhere in the world

Indefinite Detention expanded by Obama – Under Sections 1021 &102 of the NDAA, the president has the right to lock up any person, including U.S. citizens, without trial or due process.

Arbitrary Justice – The president can decide if you will be tried in a federal or military court.

Extraordinary Rendition – The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers - including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

Warrantless Searches – The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Obama extended this provision of the Patriot Act in 2011.

Immunity From Judicial Review – Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy.

Secret Evidence – The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts.

War Crimes – When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries.

The list goes on….

Posted by lp on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

and definitely troubling, but, as AS points out:

"we're adding around 150,000 jobs a month over the past year, despite a huge drop in government employment. The stock market has made big gains - from around 6500 in the spring of 2009 to almost 13000 today, inflation is under control, and interest rates are at deep lows. We're out of the quagmire of Iraq and al Qaeda has been decimated. 30 million more people have potential access to health insurance."
plus...
the auto industry has been brought back from the brink, as has the US economy
Lily Ledbetter Act passed
HIV travel ban= gone
DOMA = no longer being defended
etc...

so yeah, Obama hasn't been great, but he is certainly worlds ahead of where McCain would have taken the country, as he is worlds ahead of where Romney would take it

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 3:16 pm

Giving credit to Obama for continuing essentially the same policies as W is a stretch.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

The U.S. is no longer the land of the free~ That's the considered opinion of GWU law professor Jonathan Turley. Does anyone care? I mean, Obama gave us health care, right? Here's what Turley has to say in an interview with the filmmaker John Cusack~

CUSACK: Does anyone care — have we just given up as a country...?

TURLEY: We appear to be in a sort of a free-fall. We have what used to be called an “imperial presidency.”

CUSACK: Obama is far more of an imperial president than Bush in many ways, wouldn’t you say?

TURLEY: Oh, President Obama has created an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. It is unbelievable.

CUSACK: And to say these things, most of the liberal community or the progressive community would say, “Turley and Cusack have lost their minds. What do they want? They want Mitt Romney to come in?”

TURLEY: The question is, “What has all of your relativistic voting and support done for you?” That is, certainly there are many people who believe –

CUSACK: Well, some of the people will say the bread-and-butter issues, “I got healthcare coverage, I got expanded healthcare coverage.”

TURLEY: See, that’s what I find really interesting. When I talk to people who support the administration, they usually agree with me that torture is a war crime and that the administration has blocked the investigation of alleged war crimes.

Then I ask them, “Then, morally, are you comfortable with saying, ‘I know the administration is concealing war crimes, but they’re really good on healthcare?’” That is what it comes down to.

The question for people to struggle with is how we ever hope to regain our moral standing and our high ground unless citizens are prepared to say, “Enough.” And this is really the election where that might actually carry some weight — if people said, “Enough. We’re not going to blindly support the president and be played anymore according to this blue state/red state paradigm. We’re going to reconstruct instead of replicate. It might not even be a reinvented Democratic Party in the end that is a viable option. Civil libertarians are going to stand apart so that people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and others know that there are certain Rubicon issues that you cannot cross, and one of them happens to be civil liberty.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/03/my-interview-with-john-cusack-on-ci...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

I would rather live as a middle class American without civil rights protections for being gay than to live as a debt peonage serf, party to gruesome war crimes with unenforced antidiscrimination laws protecting me about as much as Janet Reno protected abortion providers.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

same difference

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 11:56 am

Republican National Infomercial or Democratic National Infomercial?

Which will get the bigger dead-cat-bounce?

It is all scripted (Clint Eastwood aside). A very predictable soap opera.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

Obama, given his poor image. And yet he is. Which tells me that the heartland might just give us a Romney presidency, despite his "image problem".

It's a funny old country, this.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

Obama has turned his back on the people who supported him and lurched hard to the right. He appointed Wall Street denizens as his top advisors such asTim Geitner of Goldman Sachs, and failed to help the "little guy" who is underwater with his/her mortgage. He has utterly failed to generate enough jobs to turn the economy around. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research points out, "150,000 jobs per month is not robust growth. The economy is down by more than 9.5 million jobs from its trend path. We need roughly 100,000 more jobs per month to keep pace with the growth of the labor force. This means that at 150,000 jobs per month, we are making up the jobs shortfall at the rate of 50,000 a month. At this pace it will take us close to 16 years to get back to the economy's trend job growth path. A rate of job creation that gets us to full employment in 2028 is not robust." And more alarmingly, Obama has done more to subvert the U.S. Constitution than his predecessor G.W. Bush could dream of. It's no wonder that people are turning away.

Posted by lp on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

I don't see where Obama lurched hard to the right. If he lurched hard to the right, the Repugnants would have been happy he was there and would have passed most everything he wanted. Relative to you, maybe he's not liberal enough but anyone liberal enough for you would probably get about 4% of the vote in the US with the mainstream media we have that almost demands a president bend over backwards to prove he or she isn't too liberal.

As for your job numbers, presidents don't create jobs. That's the role of the private sector. Presidents can try to get a nation's kids educated and put $ there so they can grow up and create something (either alone or as part of co) that creates demand and economic activity. President Obama has tried to do that but has been able to get through a Republican-controlled congress (Republican-controlled because even though the Dems have had a majority in the Senate since O was in office, it takes 60 votes to get passed a R filibuster and the Dems have never had 60 votes in the Senate).

It's time to realize that if you really are progressive, the most important reason to re-elect President Obama is that whoever is P for the next 4 years will probably get to put 2 ppl on the Supreme Court. That's extremely important as was shown by GWB putting Alito and Roberts on the Court - two of the five votes in the truly disastrous Citizens United ruling that basically made outright bribery of the electorate LEGAL.

It's who a president puts on the Supreme Court that probably matters the most in any president's term in office. Romney would give us a conservative rightwing SC for the next 30 or 40 years - A TRULY SCARY THOUGHT.

Don't be stupid - work hard against the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson, and the other billionaires trying to use propaganda to put their man in office for their man will eliminate troublesome health regulations that hurt the profits of the oil co's like the ones the Koch Bros own and cut taxes so education can be starved of $, etc etc.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 10:02 pm

Sadly, he went for tokenism rather than substance and, by picking justices because of their gender, race and sexual orientation, it has made little difference to the outcomes.

Say what you like about Roberts but he is very smart and effective.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 06, 2012 @ 4:43 am

years ago a convention would at least get a candidate 3 or 4 points on the bounce, it was also on every TV station.

Now most people know it's all a contrived sham for both parties and tune out.

Romney got a point and so will Obama.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 05, 2012 @ 8:05 pm