Watch Video of Obama’s Acceptance Speech

Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field:

McCain Ad Congratulates Obama for Historic Achievement

Here’s the ad John McCain plans to release this evening during Obama’s speech:

Watch Obama Greet the Bidens Onstage in Denver

Here’s the video showing Obama greeting the Bidens onstage in Denver last night.

Watch Video of Bill Clinton’s Speech in Denver

Watch a video of Bill Clinton’s stirring speech Wednesday night in Denver. The response from the crowd is evidence that Clinton continues to be one of the most beloved figures in the Democratic Party and across America.

CBS Video On Hillary’s Stem-Winder

Watch this YouTube video with Harry Smith and Lisa Caputo discussing Hillary Clinton’s stem-winder at the Democratic convention last night. Caputo is a former press secretary to Hillary Clinton.

Did Clinton Do too Well in her Speech Last Night in Denver?

John Dickerson at Slate provides a little context for Hillary Clinton’s speech in Denver last night:

“Tuesday night, the Democrats celebrated Ted Kennedy. He was in Clinton's shoes in 1980, after his hard-fought battle with Jimmy Carter. When he gave his convention speech, he mentioned Jimmy Carter once, congratulating him only in passing. Ronald Reagan never mentioned Gerald Ford in 1976. Hillary Clinton named Barack Obama more than a dozen times. Kennedy's famous speech declared that the dream will never die. Clinton's pitch was that the dream cannot live without electing Barack Obama.

“Everything seemed to be at stake for Clinton. She said the issues she'd fought for all her life would wither if Obama was not elected. She linked Obama to continuing her husband's legacy. ‘We did it before with President Clinton and the Democrats. And if we do our part, we'll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats.’ She told the story of her gender's emancipation and the fight against slavery and then rolled the entire history of progress behind the Obama candidacy. Before that history of progress could continue, ‘before we can keep going, we have to get going by electing Barack Obama.”’

Most pundits gave Hillary high marks for last night’s speech, but buried in Dickerson’s response to her words is an odd question:

“Rank-and-file Democrats could hardly have asked for more. Which may actually create a slight problem for Barack Obama. Did Clinton do too well?”

Dickerson concludes:

“…The reaction I got from the Clinton supporters who don't like Obama is that her speech was the best proof yet that she should be president—or at least be No. 2 on the ticket.

“We'll know in a few weeks whether the 18 million who helped Clinton put cracks in the highest glass ceiling are interested in helping someone else—namely, Barack Obama—finally break through.”

Clinton Supporters Still Won’t Sit down, Shut Up, and Get with the Program

Writing for the Washington Post, Eric Saslow begins:

DENVER, Aug. 26 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's most loyal delegates came to the Pepsi Center on Tuesday night looking for direction. They listened, rapt, to a 20-minute speech that many proclaimed the best she had ever delivered, hoping her words could somehow unwind a year of tension in the Democratic Party. But when Clinton stepped off the stage and the standing ovation faded into silence, many of her supporters were left with a sobering realization: Even a tremendous speech couldn't erase their frustrations

“Despite Clinton's plea for Democrats to unite, her delegates remained divided as to how they should proceed.”

And on Women’s Equality Day, 2008 they still were not willing to sit down, shut up, and get with the program.

Hopefully, the Democratic Party will have learned its lesson from this experience, and hey, it’s even possible the Republicans will have picked up a point or two about the importance of treating women with respect.

Read more.

Hillary Speaks to WomenCount.org at Denver Fundraising Event

Nicole Pitney reports on Hillary Clinton’s remarks at a fundraising event for WomenCount.org rumored to be on its way to becoming the MoveOn.org of the women’s movement.

Pitney said:

‘“Clinton's remarks reflected the extent of frustration and resentment over the presidential race among the few hundred gathered attendees, mostly women. Clinton didn't mention either Barack Obama or Joe Biden by name during the roughly 10-minute speech -- she referred once to ‘the nominees.’

“And the New York Senator's unity argument seemed to be aimed specifically at supporters who were considering abandoning the Democratic ticket and backing John McCain.

‘"I believe that with all my heart that the Democratic Party represents a much better future for everything we believe in and care about,’ she said, ‘and I will be making a very strong case tonight that we stand behind our nominees in order for us to keep pushing progress forward. We cannot be deterred, we cannot be diverted.’

“Conversations with attendees found much of the widely-reported anger over the Democratic primary.

“One Clinton delegate from North Carolina, Marc Friedland, recounted his convention hall confrontation with DNC Chairman Howard Dean. He said he pressed him to explain why Clinton-backing delegates were being, in his view, blocked from supporting their candidate on the convention floor.

“Some griped about Obama's outreach efforts – ‘If he'd actually say what he stands for, maybe I could get behind him,’ said one -- while two major donors claimed that while they were willing to support Obama, they viewed the message from his campaign as, "Get on board, you don't have any other choice.”'

Sad But True: Hillary Clinton’s Thankless Job

Marie Cocco at RealClearPolitics describes well – and with poignancy - what Hillary Clinton faces this evening in Denver and how she most likely will handle the situation:

“Hillary Clinton will be damned if she looks too methodically perfect, too much the purveyor of practiced routine and not enough the cheery personification of enthusiasm. She'll also be damned if she's too exuberant, too obviously raising her voice in unbridled exhortation for the team. She will either be deemed too cool or all-too-cagily warm.

“Clinton can't win Tuesday evening. But then, she knows that.”

“She is set to address the Democratic National Convention in Denver to give the valedictory address of her 2008 campaign -- a race in which she went further than any woman in American history toward the elusive goal of electing a woman to the White House. But this is a speech that is also meant to soothe her bruised supporters and get them to support Barack Obama, a man who -- for not a few of them -- has brazenly overtaken the more-qualified woman to grab the prize and in so doing has writ large the story of their own lives.

“Clinton is a woman who knows how to lose -- to lose any shred of privacy, to lose face, to lose any expectation of being treated with a modicum of respect by the talking heads in the media and now, to lose a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination that she expected to win. As if to heap insult upon injury, the Obama campaign let it be known that it did not for a minute seriously consider Clinton as a running mate, notwithstanding the 18 million votes she earned during the primaries and her demonstrated ability to win over white, working-class voters who remain cool to Obama and are necessary for victory in the fall. Those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling that the Obama forces conceded could gain a reference in the party's platform are, apparently, just words.

‘“In her 2003 memoir ‘Living History,’ this is how Clinton described her reaction to her earliest political loss, during her senior year in high school: ‘I ran for student government president against several boys and lost, which did not surprise me but still hurt, especially because one of my opponents told me I was 'really stupid if I thought a girl could be elected president.' As soon as the election was over, the winner asked me to head the Organizations Committee which, as far as I could tell was expected to do most of the work. I agreed.’

‘“The work of the next phase of Clinton's career has been going on doggedly, and often with little notice, since she suspended her campaign on June 7. She's been a campaign emissary for Obama to the Sheet Metal Workers union, to Hispanics and others in New Mexico and Nevada; to older women in South Florida who still haven't quite accepted the loss of what may be for some of them their last chance to see a woman elected president. The June speech Clinton made in departing from the race was, among Democratic activists, ‘probably the most seen, talked about, buzzed about speech of the campaign,’ says Mike Lux, a consultant for Democratic interest groups and an Obama supporter. It went over well, even among Obama loyalists.

“That tends to be how Clinton does things. The public Clinton doesn't usually show hints of the private pain that burns inside.

“The same cannot be said of some of her supporters, who can be expected to stage at least a few demonstrations of their fury at the outcome of the race, and at what they perceive as repeated displays of disrespect Obama has shown their hero. It is not lost on them that in selecting Joe Biden to be the vice presidential nominee, Obama has chosen a Washington insider who voted in favor of the Iraq War -- two of the sustained attacks on Clinton that Obama used to devastating effect during the primaries.

“The television cameras will linger on angry and tearful Clinton delegates in the convention crowd. The commentators will no doubt take this as a demonstration of disunity -- and not a few will, of course, blame Clinton.

“But it is usually the job of the party nominee to build unity once a vanquished rival has conceded and made the right gestures. Unless the loser happens to be a woman. Then it's just like high school, and she must do the work.”

Media Matters' Eric Boehlert Blasts Skewed Press Coverage of Hillary’s Convention Role

Eric Boehlert takes on the press in his must-read post at Media Matters this morning, Aug. 26, 2008, for its shamelessly skewed coverage of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s role in the Democratic convention that includes a prime time speech this evening and a roll call vote tomorrow.

As if the media, both old and new, hadn’t done enough in their all-out efforts to destroy Hillary Clinton, it continues its hate-mongering efforts to sabotage the first serious female presidential candidate long after the close of the Democratic primary.

Boehlert places the current media’s complete lack of professionalism in historical context:

“Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's events. (We know it's not cool because nobody does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that the political press prefers to ignore.

‘“At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story), Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address ‘avoided a direct attack’ on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown ‘did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton.’

‘“Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic.

“Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

‘“Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, ‘I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win.’ During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.

“End of history lesson.

“Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee.

“Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second, speaking at the convention, and supporting the party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the late-night streets of Denver (Pitchforks? Probably) in search of Clinton and looking to inflict long-term pain.

“Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab.

“Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.

“This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.

“Consider New York magazine: ‘Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?’

“What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy.”

Read More.

A Half-Hearted Look at Tributes to Carter and Kennedy as the Democratic Convention Begins

It’s about 9 p.m. CST here in the Midwest, and I’ve just witnessed the Carter tribute, followed by the appearance of Ted Kennedy, a very moving moment and the highlight so far of the Democratic convention. I admit my eyes misted over a couple of times, but I found myself unable to wholeheartedly get with the proceedings. Instead, I felt an emptiness from knowing the price paid so Democrats could not only ignore the media’s sexist trashing of Hillary Clinton, but actively participate in shoving her aside, thus showing crude disrespect to all women in our own nation and throughout the world.

(You will recall that I’m a lifetime Democrat who re-registered as non-affiliated this time around.)

In the meantime, the convention continues and Michelle Obama will soon be onstage to praise her husband Barack Obama. I’ll probably continue to watch.

If you need to catch up, the Caucus at the NY Times is a good bet. Kate Seelye is live blogging. For her latest post titled Senator Kennedy Takes the Stage, go here.

Echoes of Jimmy Carter in Obama’s Stirring Rhetoric

I’ve been watching CNN’s coverage of the Democratic convention and so far only one or two members of the best political team on television have made abusive, derogatory comments about Hillary Clinton and her followers and just for good measure, Bill Clinton.

I turned the volume on the TV down, took a deep breath, and returned to my keyboard to post a link to Sean Wilentz’s piece published at Newsweek. Wilentz, a Princeton historian, effectively assesses Obama’s failed attempts to launch a convincing campaign in the general election:

“Senator Obama's efforts to reinterpret the Democratic legacy have thus far amounted chiefly to promising a dramatic break with the status quo. His rhetoric of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ has thrilled millions of Democrats and helped secure the party's nomination. Yet millions of other Democrats still find his appeals wispy and unconvincing, and the persistent coolness within the ranks worries some party veterans. Democratic governors have already urged him to be more explicit about how he intends to adjust the party's principles to meet today's challenges.”

Wilenz calls our attention to the convergence of Obama’s rhetoric with this quote by Jimmy Carter:

"'Against this backdrop, how has the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, proposed to revivify Democratic liberalism? There is a quotation that ought to give Democrats, and not just Democrats, pause: 'This year will not be a year of politics as usual. It can be a year of inspiration and hope, and it will be a year of concern, of quiet and sober reassessment of our nation's character and purpose. It has already been a year when voters have confounded the experts. And I guarantee you that it will be the year when we give the government of this country back to the people of this country. There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home. Our people are searching for new voices and new ideas and new leaders.’

“Delivered in Obama's exhortatory cadences, the words are uplifting. The trouble is, though they seem to fit, the passage is from Carter's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in 1976.”

Wilentz concludes by asking a few tough questions:

“Can Obama, who lost the large industrial states in the primaries, deal with a troubled economy and become the standard bearer for the working and middle classes—the historic core of the Democratic Party that the last two Democratic candidates lost? Can the inexperienced candidate persuasively outline a new foreign policy that addresses the quagmires left by the Bush administration and faces the challenges of terrorism and a resurgent Russia? Can the less-than-one-term senator become the master of the Congress and enact goals such as universal health care that have eluded Democratic presidents since Truman? On these fundamental questions may hang the fate of Obama's candidacy. In the absence of a compelling record, set speeches, even with the most stirring words, will not resolve these matters. And until he resolves them, Obama will remain the most unformed candidate in the modern history of presidential politics.”

And this is where the Democrats are this evening as they kick off their convention in Denver with the media as usual sliming the Clintons and dissing Hillary’s supporters, while party hacks busily try to stifle any form of dissent in an already failed attempt to present a false sense of unity – democratic procedures be damned.

Read more.

Watch Out for those Stubborn Hillary Clinton Supporters

Can you believe it? The Obama camp has landed in Denver, but not to the expected thunderous applause from a unified gathering of delegates. Instead, those stubborn Clinton supporters are still demanding justice for their candidate.

USA Today reports that more than half of Clinton backers are still not sold on Obama. Here’s the scoop:

“DENVER — Fewer than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters in the presidential primaries say they definitely will vote for Barack Obama in November, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, evidence of a formidable challenge facing Democrats as their national convention opens here today.

In the survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, 47% of Clinton supporters say they are solidly behind Obama, and 23% say they support him but may change their minds before the election.

“Thirty percent say they will vote for Republican John McCain, someone else or no one at all.

“The findings spotlight the stakes for Clinton when she addresses the convention Tuesday and when her name is placed in nomination.”

Read the article in its entirety here.

Ethical Questions Posed by a Hillary Supporter Encamped in Denver

Heidi Li Feldman, a law professor at Georgetown University, is probably one of the more knowledgeable Democrats when it comes to party rules and procedures. She’s also unafraid to call Dr. Dean and members of the DNC to account. She posted from Denver this morning to Heidi Li’s Potpourri:

“The DNC, Dr. Dean, Speaker Pelosi, et al. are learning, the hard way, that faux unity is no unity; that when you try to create your own reality, real reality tends to get in the way.

“So now here we are in Denver and Dr. Dean's and Speaker Pelosi's preferred candidate is dead even with John McCain in the polls; it is quite clear that delegates to the convention understand their rights and responsibilities and want to have to opportunity to elect Senator Clinton as the Party's nominee; the DNC seems to be in a panic over its decision to enter Senator Clinton's name in nomination; the DNC and DNCC still will not confirm that they will hold a straightforward, transparent, regular roll call vote as specified in the Call for The 2008 Democratic National Convention, the Party's own official convention governance document.

“Forget about making it seem like the Party is unified. At the moment, Dr. Dean and Speaker Pelosis cannot even make it seem like the Party - or at least its top officials - are honest.”

The Beijing/Denver Connection: Tinderbox Environment

PUMA Heads for Denver

The summer Olympics ended in Beijing today on Sunday, Aug. 24, 2008, the day before the Democratic convention is scheduled to begin in Denver and believe it or not, there may well be a connection between the two events.

The Christian Science Monitor reports on how China played its role as Olympic host:

“One prediction that did ring true was that China refused to allow protests, contrary to its past pledges. Domestic critics were silenced beforehand or snared by catch-22 rules on protest permits. Foreign activists seeking to publicize the cause of Tibet pulled off symbolic stunts that few spectators noticed.”

It appears that one of China’s goals was to present to the world a unified country, even at the cost of stifling any signs of dissent.

We Americans are grateful that we live in a country where we have freedom of speech, and dissent is recognized as an important element of living in a democracy.

Oops! I just saw this article by Lisa Wangsness in today’s Boston Globe:

“Democratic Party leaders have spent weeks preparing a national convention this week that will burst with symbols of unshakable unity behind Senator Barack Obama.

“But outside the convention arena in Denver, some of Hillary Clinton's supporters plan to air their grievances against Obama, the party's leadership, and the national media, whose coverage of the primary battle they considered sexist. Hundreds of disaffected Democrats from around the country plan to converge in the Mile High City to hold news conferences, protests, and vigils, threatening the party's ability to present a united front against Republican John McCain.

Wangsness continues:

‘“While many Clinton delegates say they will back Obama and do not intend to embarrass him, grass-roots activists planning protests outside the convention hope to disrupt the sense of unity party leaders are cultivating.‘This is a voter's revolt,’ said Darragh Murphy, who founded Puma PAC, a pro-Clinton political action committee whose acronym stands for People United Means Action.

“Polls suggest Obama's narrow national lead is all but disappearing amid attacks from a newly aggressive and disciplined McCain campaign. One reason for this appears to be that barely half of Clinton's supporters plan to vote for Obama, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week. With the last two presidential elections decided by a small number of voters in swing states, Obama needs a unified party to win in November.

‘“Puma PAC is among a multitude of pro-Clinton groups that formed online to protest a variety of issues, including perceived media bias and flaws in the primary process. In Denver, Murphy's group plans to show the premiere of an unfinished movie, ‘The Audacity of Democracy,’ and is cosponsoring a protest and candlelight salute to Clinton tomorrow. Another group, PUMA 08, will coordinate communication between its members and the press, and provide a home base for bloggers who support Clinton.”’

“A separate organization, 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise, is calling on Clinton supporters to join a march and gathering celebrating Clinton's achievements and the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage on Tuesday.

“Democratic analysts downplay the significance of the demonstrators because Clinton's top aides and prominent supporters have shunned them. But analysts are aware they could be a distraction.”

Wangsness reports that Democratic strategist Chris Lehane made the Beijing/Denver connection:

‘“I think the vast majority of the Hillary folks did fall in love with Hillary - and now are certainly falling in line with Obama. Having said that, there's going to be the largest gathering of press outside of Beijing in Denver this week, with all of them on a hair-trigger for the slightest sign of dissonance and conflict. . . . It has all the elements of a tinderbox environment.’

True democracy is always kind of messy, Mr. Lehane, and you and your cohorts could have avoided the potential for “dissonance and conflict” had you seen fit to speak out against the misogynous attacks on Hillary Clinton by party leaders and media allies during the Democratic primary. And of course, some of those unpleasant distractions now building up in Denver might have been avoided had the DNC planned a convention offering a legitimate election instead of a media event designed to convey a false sense of unity.

To read the Lisa Wangsness article in its entirety go here.

OMG! Nancy Pelosi Suddenly Realizes Clinton Supporters Count, too!

As I recall from the primary, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was among those Democratic Party leaders who refused to take a stand against the relentless sexist attacks that Hillary Clinton endured. Since then Pelosi has acknowledged that Sen. Clinton’s campaign had been hindered by sexism; however, the Speaker dismissed it by saying “it goes with the territory.”

As noted in the LA Times, Pelosi “never officially chose sides in the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. But most of those reading tea leaves assumed her heart was with the eventual winner.”

As early as January, the Times points out, Pelosi effectively encouraged superdelegates to abandon Hillary Clinton and jump on the bandwagon of the charismatic Obama with his proven ability to instantaneously convert large crowds into revival meetings starring legions of youth chanting, “Yes, we can.”

In light of all of the above, it’s a little mind numbing to read in the Hill this morning the selfsame Pelosi, in her by now familiar condescending manner, is holding women leaders in the Democratic party, along with Hillary Clinton’s supporters, responsible for the success of her guy Obama this November:

“DENVER – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicted Saturday that female Democratic leaders will help unify the party by getting disgruntled supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton to back Barack Obama.

“Beginning with speeches by Sen. Clinton (N.Y.) and other women at the Democratic convention here next week, the party’s women will come out strongly for Sen. Obama (Ill.) throughout the campaign, said Pelosi (Calif.), who holds the highest position in the federal government ever occupied by a woman.

“Addressing reporters at a pre-convention luncheon sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Pelosi predicted that the Obama campaign would be able to win over Clinton’s supporters before the election. She stressed, though, that, if they failed to do so, it would be their own fault.

‘“I believe that women will see that they have the most to gain by the election of Barack Obama and the most to lose by the election of John McCain,’ Pelosi said. The differences between Obama and Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) are like ‘night and day’ on issues such as healthcare, education and the war in Iraq, she said.”’

What Speaker Pelosi still fails to understand is that by their passive response to the pervasive sexism throughout the primary, she and other party leaders actually condoned and encouraged the abusive treatment suffered by the first serious female presidential candidate in the nation’s history.

Pelosi’s comments at this point are not only too little too late, they also bear an unmistakable note of condescension toward those of us who saw what was going on and have refused to sit down, shut up, and get with the Democratic Party’s program of nominating Barack Obama at all costs.

Trying to convince us that we have no choice in November other than vote for the lesser of two evils, Barack Obama or John McCain, doesn’t cut it. First of all, the Democratic Party owes Hillary Clinton a public apology, and her supporters need to know for certain the party will no longer tolerate sexism and misogyny in its own ranks or from its bigoted allies in the media.

Until then, Madam Speaker, we’ll remember to vote present in November.

Whoa! 34% of Colorado’s Population Indifferent to Democratic Convention?

So you thought expectations of the One’s appearance at that big football stadium in Colorado was likely sending tingling sensations up the legs of all the locals? Well, here’s a sobering word from an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News:

‘“Welcome to Denver, Democratic delegates. You're off to a good start: Only 34 percent of this state's population is indifferent to your presence. The fact that the rest of Coloradans, according to a recent Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 News poll, are ‘interested’ in your convention (20 percent), ‘excited’ (15), ‘annoyed’ (11), ‘worried’ (9) or actually ‘thrilled’ (9) is a tribute to the importance of national politics this year.

“And no doubt also to the historic nature of your party's nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

“Because, let's face it: Your convention, like every other one in recent years, will amount to orchestrated political theater, with all the spontaneity of a synchronized diving routine. Yet Americans will watch with fascination because they know something big is afoot - a contest between candidates who wish to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Even political theater can provide valuable clues about the intentions and character of our would-be leaders. As visitors - and also tourists - you will no doubt hear a lot of loose talk this week from well-intentioned local hosts and convention speakers about "Western values," the frontier attitudes of self-reliance, independence, openness and live-and-let-live. Don't believe that hooey for a minute. Most Coloradans' cultural memory of the frontier is no more vivid than yours is - and in case you hadn't noticed, most of us reside in cities anyway.”

Hey, you gotta give those Coloradans credit; they know already that the convention will be nothing more than “orchestrated political theater,” including the fake roll call vote it hopes will appease Hillary supporters; never mind that an illegitimate vote is a blatant violation of party rules.

Read the Rocky Mountain News editorial in its entirety here.

Democrats in Trouble as Convention Approaches

The Democratic convention starts next Monday, Aug. 25, 2008, and it’s been a long time coming since Obama anointed himself as the presumptive nominee on June 3rd, and Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign four days later.

In the meantime, Obama of the soaring speeches read in oratorical grandiosity to thousands of eager, mostly youthful fans has flip-flopped his way ungracefully to the center on most issues and floundered lately in his exchanges with John McCain, his Republican adversary.

Not surprisingly, the One’s poll numbers have been sinking lately and as we might expect, the media is offering Obama all kinds of helpful advice. Take a look at these examples from the list of articles indexed at RealClearPolitics this morning:

Obama: In Need of a Game Changer - David Gergen, CNN
It's Up to Obama to Erase the Doubt - Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe
Where's Obama's Passion? - Joe Klein, Time
Obama's Not Over the Hill(ary) Yet - Margery Eagan, Boston Herald
Daley Says Shhh, Library Quiet on Obama - John Kass, Chicago Tribune
Obama Needs a Narrative - Steven Stark, Boston Phoenix
Woe Is Me, Said the Democrat - Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle

Since it was the latest Reuters/Zogby that reported McCain now leads Obama by five points, it’s appropriate that John Zogby, over at the Huffington Post, is asking: Do Obama's Sinking Poll Numbers -- Signal History Repeating for Democrats?

If the media can be taken seriously – doubtful after their performance during the Democratic primary – Democrats are in trouble in a year when the presidential contest was theirs to lose. But they have only themselves to blame; after all, they went along with their media allies who repeatedly trashed Hillary Clinton, the immensely better qualified candidate, while succumbing to the allure of a talented motivational speaker. Obama demonstrated once again last Saturday night at Saddleback that he is completely at a loss without a teleprompter.

The good news is that it’s not too late. All Democrats have to do is abide by their own rules and hold a legitimate roll call vote next week and elect Hillary Clinton as their official nominee.

Democrats Trample the Progressive Banner En Route to Denver

Democratic National Committee Chair, Howard Dean

In the heat of August out here in the Midwest, the mind balks at recalling the frozen terrain of New Hampshire in January. But the compulsion to understand what brought Democrats — just days ahead of their national convention — to a state of affairs in which they willfully trample on the banner of progressivism demands it.

As a Unitarian-Universalist, the significance of that progressive banner was brought home to me by the July shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church by a crazed intruder motivated by hatred of gays and liberals. Ironically, the liberal or progressive movement as defined in the UU tradition would have embraced the unemployed suspect in compassionate outreach.

The first two of the UU’s seven principles are undeniably at the core of the progressive movement: 1) The inherent worth and dignity of every person; and 2) Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations. Given half a chance, progressive economic and foreign policies flow naturally from that core.

Politically, progressives most often identify with the Democratic Party, but it was during the run up to the New Hampshire primary that a peculiar aberration from the above principled credo became impossible to ignore. In the 160th year after the first women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls, NY, an extraordinarily well-qualified female presidential candidate could not count on even minimal respect from otherwise progressive party officials, the campaign staffs and backers of her opponents in the Democratic primary, and certainly not from either the old or new media.

On Monday, Jan. 7, I tuned in the PBS News Hour where I’d once taken for granted at least fair-minded news coverage. That evening, Jim Lehrer smirked as he referred to Hillary Clinton’s moment of “weakness” captured in a video clip at a meeting with supporters in a New Hampshire restaurant where Sen. Clinton’s eyes welled up as she spoke these words:

“This is very personal for me. It's not just political; it's not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it.”

The senator continued:

“And some people think elections are a game. They think it's like who's up or who's down. It's about our country; it's about our kids' futures. It's really about all of us together.”

Lehrer’s scornful attitude toward Hillary Clinton on the eve of the New Hampshire primary was not all that remarkable. Week after week during The Analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks, Shields, the progressive counterpart to the conservative Brooks, unabashedly fawned over Barack Obama, while failing to conceal his contempt when forced to speak the name of Hillary Clinton. By then, however, I relished the power of the off button on my remote to cut short offensively biased news broadcasts —whether originating from PBS, network, or cable.

As Tuesday, January 8, dawned on the Granite State’s primary, five days after the Iowa caucus, the polls were nearly unanimous in predicting a double-digit win for Obama, happily exulting to his followers about riding a wave. Even then, talking heads were wondering aloud to one another when “Hillary” would most likely drop out of the race.

Pundits would later manage to avoid giving full credit to Sen. Clinton for her New Hampshire win by calling it “miraculous.” But that very night on the News Hour, Mark Shields predictably agreed with a comment by David Brooks in chalking up Sen. Clinton’s win to gender: “I think David's point about gender is crucial. Gender did not work for Hillary Clinton in Iowa. It worked for her in New Hampshire. We know what happened; we don't know why.”

As pollsters and pundits scrambled to explain the New Hampshire upset, Jesse Jackson, Jr., national co-chair of Barack Obama’s campaign, went on a rampage. The day after the primary, the grim-faced Jackson’s spin on Sen. Clinton’s moment in the New Hampshire restaurant was egregiously sexist; he accused Clinton of melting the Granite State by showing emotion over her appearance that she had failed to show over national catastrophes such as Katrina video and text here.

To my recollection, there was no immediate outcry from Democratic Party leaders, the mainstream media, or the new media over Jackson’s blatant injection of sexism into the campaign.

By then it was clear to any semi-conscious Democrat that Barack Obama owned the party’s left wing, ginned up by the netroots — hundreds of thousands of political junkies swarming Internet message boards 24/7 in aggressive support of their idol.

Having co-opted the label, the netroots, along with various social networking sites, redefined the progressive movement to suit its own purposes: any hint of racism, real or imagined, in the 2008 presidential campaign was taboo, but it was open season for the most obscene expressions of sexism and misogyny.

Whereas, Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s hate-mongering, sexist slur of Hillary Clinton in the aftermath of her upset victory in New Hampshire went largely ignored, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz pointed out in his op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

‘“Obama's backers, including members of his official campaign staff, then played what might be called ‘the race-baiter card.’ Hillary Clinton, in crediting both Lyndon Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had supposedly denigrated King, and by extension Obama. Allegedly, Bill Clinton had dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing it to those of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. (In fact, their electoral totals were comparable — and in the interview at issue, Clinton complimented Obama on his performance ‘everywhere’ — a line the media usually omitted.)”’

When pinned down during the Las Vegas debate, Obama made clear – after most of the damage had been done – that he was well aware the Clintons were not racists.

In the meantime, misogynist attacks against Hillary Clinton continued unabated. In response to MSNBC’s suspension of David Shuster for his on-the-air remark accusing the Clinton campaign of “pimping” their daughter Chelsea, an unbelievable number of Obama’s online supporters jumped to Shuster’s defense while verbally assaulting Sen. Clinton and her family. Here’s a sample:

“Shuster should have given them the middle finger. Pimp is becoming part of the vernacular today. It's one of the slang words that{’}s utterly harmless. And the fact that the Clinton Machine is pimping Chelsea out makes this even more pathetic. People get so pissy and uppity over the stupidest things.

“What they really need to address is how the hell Chelsea became the ugliest child/ person in politics. Or Public office. That poor thing got beat with the ugly stick one too many times.”

Similarly, after Obama aide Samantha Power resigned for publicly calling Hillary Clinton a monster, the following response from the netroots was typical:

“…Powers was 99.99% correct Mrs. Clinton is not only a monster but Lucifer's twin sister.”

By the time Barack Obama claimed the title of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party on June 3 in St. Paul, he boasted only a narrow lead in delegates; whereas, Clinton led in the popular vote. Nevertheless, the same pundits who had been trying for months to force Clinton out of the race, railed at her for taking the time to thank her supporters for her South Dakota win that night instead of immediately conceding the nomination to Obama.

It took feminist icon Gloria Steinem to point out: “No candidate in history has been asked to step down by the media. She {Clinton} was.”

Steinem added, “The average time it takes for a loser to endorse a winner in this situation is four months. “She {Clinton} did it in four days. And look how she was criticized for not doing it the very same night.”

After Clinton made her concession speech and the dust from the primary had somewhat settled, Melissa McEwan and Maureen McCluskey published their two-part article titled Destroying Hillary Clinton in the Guardian. The article documented how the Left, also known as the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, mined the Right’s smears from the nineties for its prolonged orgy of Hillary-bashing to secure the nomination for the favored Barack Obama.

However, since first declaring himself the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in early June, Obama has shifted from left to center on almost every major issue that once endeared him to progressives including abortion, public financing, FISA, faith-based initiatives, NAFTA, gun control, the death penalty, tapping the nation’s oil reserves, and offshore drilling. Obama’s sudden shifts drew expressions of disappointment, scoldings, and advice from once unwavering supporters in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere: here, here, and here.

Moreover, Obama has given his opponents the same kind of ammunition they used so successfully against John Kerry in 2004. Here’s how the conservative blog RedState described Obama’s sudden betrayal of his left-wing base: “Once he won the Democratic nomination, though, Obama started moving so quickly to re-brand himself as a 'centrist' that you'd be forgiven getting whiplash watching him move.”

By abandoning his earlier positions – in the spirit of whatever it takes to win - Barrack Obama, the party’s presumptive standard bearer, effectively tossed aside the progressive banner, already desecrated by the unrelenting sexism and misogyny long endured by Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, hopes grow dim for an open convention conducted according to democratic procedures requiring Sen. Clinton’s name on the ballot and a roll call vote. Instead, party leaders have reportedly planned a rigged election to conclude with Sen. Clinton turning over her delegates to Obama.

Thus, Democrats trample the discarded progressive banner on their march to a carefully staged media event in Denver expected to culminate with Obama’s coronation before 75,000 onlookers in the Mile High Stadium at Invesco Field.

Wake Up Call for Democrats: Obama Offers Hope for What?

Hillary Clinton tried to tell Democrats during their primary that a rousing motivational speaker talking about generic hope and change wouldn’t cut it in the general election. But it’s taken repeated match ups in national polls showing a dead heat between Barack Obama and John McCain for Democratic Party leaders to get the message.

In today’s NY Times, Patrick Healy writes:

“As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning.

“These Democrats — 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders — say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

“Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.”

How about that? Change is not an issue.

Read more.