The brilliant Victor Davis Hanson sums it up nicely: This Democratic propensity to plead poverty and oppression to highlight one’s own success — along with the therapeutic anecdote — finally becomes numbing. Obama, who gained his education and fou…

VolMagic on August 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM

I’m sure the Obamessiah said those words with all the heartfelt sincerity and conviction behind his support of Rev. Wright, his grandmother, drilling on the OCS, and the importance of judgement over experience.

Oh, and his latest policy positions…whatever those are at this moment.

“It wasn’t intended for you”

What, we aren’t Americans?’

What happened to “There is no Blue America and no Red America… there is only the United States of America.”

And again, if we needed more proof of that, we could simply have watched the tone and tenor of the convention itself. Its harsh, complaining, and Bush-obsessed speeches were calculated to present an enemy around which this fractured base could rally, rather than make the sale with the general public.

Complain complain complain…but not once did he step up and say what he was going to do to fix it…just CHANGE! hes an empty suit…gov Palin and Johnny boy are gonna wax the floor with him :)

max1 on August 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM

That was my comment, not drywall’s.

If you need someone to say the words “September Eleventh” to make the events of the day carry the proper significance, well then I’m afraid you’re simply missing the point. Does the word “September” really drive it home for you? Is that the proper phraseology to honor those who dies on that day? Screw moral authority, this is just simple common sense and nit pickery.

Saying “nine eleven” in no way trivializes the thousands of casualties of that day. If anything, it simply vilifies the words “nine” and “eleven”. Although words may count, I don’t necessarily think that the words “nine” and “eleven” will lose any sleep over their recent vilification.

not for nothing, drywall, but i live in downtown Manhattan and watched both buildings fall in front of me eyes… sorry to take away your Absolute Moral Authority card… and i stick by my conjecture that Barry’s use of the “Nine-Eleven” term was intentionally trivializing…words count…didn’t the One tell us so?

I am more than a few commentators has stated that the whole DNC convention and the wrap up speech should have been geared to swaying independants, especially given Barack’s popularity amoung Dems. Having seen that the whole Hillary will-she-or-won’t-she was essentially a very nice sucker by the Dems to ensure ratings, grabbing independants should have been the main goal.

As I (am again, many others) have said, the republicans need to forget about “engergizing the base” crap and target independants by refuting each and every lie in just about every speech that came out of Dever this week. In fact, McCains’s speech should directly address Barack’s speech.

It REALLY bugged me when he referred to the events of September 11, 2001 as “Nine-Eleven.” That is trivializing, and was surely intentional. Sure, in conversations, etc. it’s ok, but in a speech of this (hic) magnitude, this day should simply not be abbreviated…again Just IMHO…

max1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:53 AM

AMEN! I hate hearing anyone use “Nine-Eleven.” That’s been a pet-peeve of mine for almost seven years now.

flyfisher on August 29, 2008 at 9:57 AM
——————–

Congratulations! The award for extreme nitpicking goes to you two.

Your prize is an order of Freedom Fries©®™.

Dave Rywall on August 29, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Well Rywall, I am not so small-minded that I would actually hold “Nine-Eleven” against Obama. That phrase is just a small pet-peeve of mine, it’s like nails on a chalkboard to me. But I will admit, it’s a big nothing.

So, please take comfort in the knowledge that his use of the phrase is something like Reason No. 497 on my Why I Don’t Support Obama List.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

Agreed with your analysis to a point – conservatives should not be the target of that speech. But how does Obama’s speech reach out to the groups you mentioned (other than the Kosbots)? If motivating the base was sufficient for liberal Democrat candidates, then we would be debating the likelihood of President Kerry’s second term at this moment.

Don’t blame them, they’re just following the lead of the Obamessiah.

Your prize is an order of Freedom Fries©®™.

Dave Rywall on August 29, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Mmmmm I loves me some Freedom Fries!

Congratulations! The award for extreme nitpicking goes to you two.

Your prize is an order of Freedom Fries©®™.

Dave Rywall on August 29, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Awesome, I totally agree. I’m a NYer and lost friends in nine eleven, and I could seriously care less about how it is referenced. September 11th, 9-11 nine one one…really makes no difference.

Now to the other matter at hand. I feel like MOST speeches given during election times are primarily given to energize the base, and court some undecided independents. I think by this time each respective parties know they’re not exactly going to be cutting each others base out from under them, so they look to keep theirs in the fold, and try to nab a bigger chunk of the undecideds.

This is all before Palin though…I have no idea how that’s going to roll yet…I mean I have my suspicions, but it seems like she’s very republican, and may not garner as many of the disaffected HRC supporters as some people like to think. It’s still a great move though.

Obama is a brilliant orator, and his delivery last night was very good.

Actually I thought his delivery was terrible if you were watching it on TV. I can’t believe how much he did the look left, look right, look straight and switch back and forth so quickly. I did not get the impression he was trying to speak to me, but trying to look every where but at me on TV. I actually stopped watching to be able to listen, because this head swerving was too distracting at times.

max1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:53 AM

AMEN! I hate hearing anyone use “Nine-Eleven.” That’s been a pet-peeve of mine for almost seven years now.

flyfisher on August 29, 2008 at 9:57 AM
——————–

Congratulations! The award for extreme nitpicking goes to you two.

Your prize is an order of Freedom Fries©®™.

And thus, why should we take you seriously here?

Tom_Shipley on August 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Ooh, Tom, bad timing on that question. Ed is taking quite seriously by the overwhelming majority of HotAir readers – take time to actually read the commentary on his posts – because of his diligence, hard work, detailed research and straightforward reporting, in my opinion.

He has won over this group with that effort, when few of us were frequent readers of his previous work at Captain’s Quarters, other than in passing.

You, on the other hand, are reviled, and not just because of your knee jerk liberalism and dissent, but because you almost never have anything intelligent to say other than “you’re wrong and the left is right”.

You’re a hatchet man. I can honestly say without a doubt that I KNEW you’d say it was a bad speech.

Tom_Shipley on August 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

And you were wrong, completely wrong. Here’s what I read from Capt Ed’s post:

Obama is a brilliant orator, and his delivery last night was very good. However, it wasn’t good enough to get beyond the limits of his base, and that’s what made this week a lost opportunity for Obama and the Democrats.

There’s no criticism of Obama’s speech here, or elsewhere in the post. The point Ed made was a remarkably centrist, objective one — that Obama’s in a tough spot because he still has to sell his base on his candidacy when he ought to have been selling the nation.

The knee-jerk partisan in the room, Tom_Shipley, is you.

By the way, there are a number of us here who think that the reason there’s so much written that makes Obama look bad is the fact that Obama does so much on his own to make himself look bad. Granted that a lot of us are partisans, we’re aware, educated, thinking partisans who are grateful that in a year when the Democratic brand is inexplicably selling well (despite single-digit approval ratings for a Democrat-led Congress), the Democrats have nominated for President a substance-free rookie who seems intent on destroying himself.

Of course, we do expect that Democrat partisans like you will find a way to blame his self-destruction on Republicans, the way they blamed Kerry’s and Gore’s self-destruction on Republicans. It’s your way.

cornfedbubba on August 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM

…is closer to the mark this time than Ed.

The Joe “Have I mentioned I’m from Scranton?” Biden pick and this speech were both aimed at trying to pick up those disaffected blue collar Dems who voted for HRC in the primaries (why not just pick HRC for VP? Because he’s more petty than JFK in offering the VP to LBJ).

And as far as that strategy goes, the speech was alright, minus a few lapses into anger.

But the speech demonstrates the degree to which Obama was still having to address his weaknesses and defend himself against McCain’s “celebrity” attack, etc.

Obama has been playing defense since late June — rejecting public financing, audaciously flip-flopping, trying to build up his foreign policy/defense cred, etc. And late June is when he started trending downward in the polls.

- the painful isolation of those who call themselves members of the “black community” or “persons of color” (my favorite). Polling 95% + in favor Obama, while declaring that this vote is not racial, and simultaneously declaring his candidacy “historic” and declaring that they cried during his speech. This from pro-life Christians. Pretzel logic.

- the startling projection of the liberal Democrats, who have cried and whined about the alleged secrecy of Bush and Cheney for 7 years, but who have made inaccessible virtually the entire written record of Obama’s 8 years in the Illinois senate, and have orchestrated a national campaign of threats and intimidation against every media outlet that dares to report or investigate his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

- and (again and again and again) the hilarious hypocrisy of the partisan Democrat, for more reasons than anyone has time to read here.