You have to wonder what these ratings will mean for the 'convention bounce?' From Reuters:
Over 38 million Americans tuned in for television coverage of Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination for U.S. president on Thursday in what is believed to be the most watched convention speech ever.
and
By comparison, 24.4 million viewers saw the 2004 Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, give his acceptance speech, and fewer still, 21.8 million, tuned in for the final night of the 2000 convention when then-Vice President Al Gore was nominated as the party's standard bearer.
Makes you kind of go WOW! The average Gallup bounce is 5 points. One wonders if for reasons of both quality and quantity Obama's might be bigger?
We'll find out for sure Monday with the release of the regular Gallup Poll.
So far Rasmussen has Obama up 46-43 in their daily tracking poll which does not yet include the speech. It's 49-45 when 'leaners' are included.
Gallup's daily has Obama up 49-41! It also was conducted almost entirely pre-speech.
Those seem to indicate a pretty sizable bounce. One has to wonder what, if anything, Sen. John McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin as a running mate will do to affect those numbers.
What can you say about Barack Obama's speech. Even Pat Buchanan had to be cut off in the middle of effusive praise on MSNBC because he was using too much time to praise the speech!
The only reaction initially out of the McCain camp was this:
"Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm's way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President."
This prompted Chuck Todd to say on MSNBC that the speech had left the McCain camp "speechless". How else to you describe a reaction like that to a speech like that?
Liberal bloggers and pundits heaped on the praise and wondered at the response.
My God! Pat Buchanan was saying that this was one of the greatest convention speeches of all time!
My own take was that the tone of the statement from the McCain campaign was like someone who'd had the wind knocked out of them.
That's probably the best take. The McCain camp could have put that release out before the speech it is so knee-jerk. They knew something big might be coming but I think they were taken aback by the scope and breadth of this speech.
Conservative bloggers tried to make light of and discredit the speech:
Actually, there were several statements Obama made in his speech tonight that Team McCain should be able to use against him. Their ads to date have been excellent on using Obama’s words, and those of his fellow Democrats, against him. Let’s hope it continues.
Specifically, Sister Toldjah wants McCain to use the, “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” line against Barack Obama. Ok. Sure.
Dan Riehl at Riehl World View seems to think that he heard Obama's acceptance speech in 1960 Democratic National Convention. I think there is not an unusual amount of similarity other than the fact that were both given by great speechmakers in similar situations. But is that really a bad thing anyway? (Link to Kennedy audio and transcript here.)
They are grasping at straws. They do so love to criticize Olbermann and Matthews when they have nothing else to say.
I am sure, as every Republic(an) has said this week, that the Republic(an)s will be 'on message' next week. They always are. Problem for them right now is that they might need to change that message for it to work.
Even if they do, can John McCain close out his convention on as much of high note as Barack Obama closed his? I don't know that the John McCain I know is a good enough speech maker even if he did have the message. He can't compete with that delivery.
I asked in an earlier post whether the Democrats were trying to build a crescendo to the finish. I got my answer, big time.
The Republic(an)s have a massive challenge to meet next week. Chuck Todd said last night that normally, you prefer to follow the other party with your convention, but that, after that convention and speech, following the Democrats might be problematic for the Republic(an)s.
It is remarkable how the Democrats almost seem like they have a coherent theme this year. Joe Biden gave a great acceptance speech:
I liked how he attacked in this speech. Some haven't liked the common theme amongst some of the senators speaking that refer to John McCain as their "friend." I am quite sure it is true of all of those who used it. Joe Biden used his 'close friendship' better than any of them as he contrasted his radically different view of the problems and solutions for the country with John McCain. I thought that was great.
I am hoping that the attacking trend continues. They almost seem as if they have a rising crescendo of attacking McCain which will hopefully culminate with Barack Obama's acceptance speech. If that was the strategy, I hope it works. If there is a drop off, I will be very disappointed.
Joe Biden may be the designated attack dog but Barack Obama needs to do some attacking tonight himself.
Great speech. Loved the family at the end. The grand kids are cute.
I have mixed feelings about the special guest appearance. I suppose it had to be done, otherwise he would never have made an appearance in the facility in which the bulk of the convention was held. Still, it was Joe's night to shine. He took a tiny bit away from Joe by stopping by.
This is one speech you need to watch if you weren't watching C-Span and missed it. The majors cut away to the talking heads again! Do yourself a favor and watch it if you missed it though.
Wow. If that guy had run for president four years ago we would be living in a different world today.
Unfortunately, as is now commonly known, John Kerry was abducted by space aliens in the early summer of 2004 and replaced with a doppelganger that was predisposed to being namby-pamby about criticizing George W. Bush. Especially at things like conventions. The aliens, on the payroll of Halliburton, did not return him until sometime in 2005.
Thank goodness this John Kerry spoke last night. That was one of the best speeches of the entire convention and, thanks to the major networks, a lot of people didn't get to see it.
At least the attacking has started. It was conspicuously lacking four years ago, as I alluded to. But Kerry made a very compelling case against both George W. Bush and John McCain. The democrats now have to keep going on this.
The reason that 9/11 was mention 456,784 (or so) times at the 2004 Republican National Convention was so that, when the cameras were on someone, the 9/11 message would be heard.
The Democrats would have done well to have a tag line that got repeated over and over throughout the convention. "Do you want four more years of the same?" isn't resonating with me. On the other hand, I am the choir, not the target audience. Hopefully it works.
Stay on the attack! (And watch out for those damn space aliens!)
If you didn't see Bill Clinton's speech last night, but are still interested, here it is (I promise it is a LOT shorter than his 1988 convention speech):
Bill did a great job with what he had to do, namely come out unequivocally for Barack Obama. Because he had to do that there was a lot less McCain/Bush bashing than some of us were hoping for. He did fit in a pretty good amount of that in the second half though.
All in all, pretty good, even for him. Didn't think I'd be able to say this a few months ago but Hillary's speech was better. Sorry Bill, but she rocked. I think you already know this though.
I haven't posted on this, and did not intend to, but it is apparently going to be a continuing story so...
First off, this isn't a failed assasination attempt. See here. There is a huge difference between wanting to assasinate someone and being a 'credible threat.' Normally, I wouldn't want the job of determining a 'credible threat' but here I don't think it is all that hard in this case.
The reason I have decided to post on this is because The Smoking Gun has now posted "Because Obama Is Black" which includes copies of the affidavits filed with the drug and gun charges against Tharin Gartrell, Nathan Johnson, and Shawn Adolf in Federal court. This story, of course, got Dugg up and thus it will not die the natural death it so richly deserves.
This story has a telling subtitle: Denver plot revealed, but only gun and drug charges for three
You know why that is what they were being charged with? Because they can't find any one of their own asses with all three pairs of hands much less make a serious attempt on the life of a presidential candidate with the world's best security service enveloping him!
These guys are dangerous, yes, but more dangerous to themselves than the candidate. No one is going to convict them on conspiracy charges because no one will believe they were capable of getting beyond the talking stage and, even if they were, no one would believe they would have come anywhere near pulling anything off!
These guys are a bunch of drug users, who are also possibly white supremicists, and are most certainly racists, and had guns. Go NRA!
These guys need to go to jail. This story needs to die. There are always nut jobs out there. I am glad these ones are off the street.
Good. The cops did their job. But the drug and gun charges are the real crimes here anyway. The fact that they talked about killing Obama? Well, that's just more stupidity and not based in any reality.
Just for your titillation here is an interview of Nathan Johnson:
Of course there was no credible threat! Do you really think this guy and his friends could have gotten anywhere near Barack Obama? Is it really a conspiracy/plot if it had no chance of ever happening?
These guys are lucky they got caught when they did. If they had actually tried to go through with any part of whatever their hair-brained scheme may or may not have actually been, they would have been facing bigger charges at best or, more likely, an undertaker.
Thus, the end of the story. At least, until somebody figures out a way to link these guys in a conspiracy to the Clintons at which point I will try as hard as I can to find a way to move to the moon.
Comments welcome, but not completely necessary on this tripe,
If you didn't get to see, and you didn't if you weren't watching C-Span, here is the video of Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. If you've never experienced him, you owe yourself the treat!
Isn't he a kick in the pants! I've loved this guy ever since I first started hearing him on the radio with Ed Schultz.
I was actually rather impressed that he only gave a glancing mention to coal degasification and carbon sequestration. He is a really big proponent of those technologies. Of course, Montana has some sizable coal reserves. He understands that the average American probably doesn't understand this stuff quite yet and now is not the time to get into a detailed explanation.
I was quite happy that that we actually did some McCain bashing in this speech also. Still not doing it enough or as consistently as I or James Carville or Paul Begala or Josh Marshall or even Pat Buchanan would like, but it's better.
As you can see, another good speech, during prime time, that the networks just plain aren't showing. Stupid.
Perhaps there is hope for America! Someone else noticed that there is a convention going on!
Jeremy McCarter has a great article over at Newsweek Online decrying the coverage the major networks are giving the convention. The major speakers get seen, everyone else gets ignored. Unless, of course, you are watching C-Span (highly recommended.)
It's pretty ridiculous. Nobody even saw one of the great speeches of the convention, with Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. (I may have a separate post about that later. He was fabulous.)
OH!!! I'm sorry! I forgot! We need managed news coverage. We can't evaluate ourselves. We need to know what to think about "post-revisionism". Yeah...right...I'll get back to you on that.
I never liked managed care for health and I don't like managed news for information. I'll decide for myself guys. Occasional commentary is great but, as I said in yesterday's post, this coverage is more about the commentary and commentators than about the event and it's participants.
Stick a fork in it, folks. It sucks.
Thank goodness someone else noticed the crappy coverage. Thank you, Jeremy McCarter. Thank you for, at least, making me have a small glimmer of hope for mainstream media coverage.
I was repeatedly irritated by the constant "Let's go to the panel..." coverage of everyone but C-Span. Yes, I enjoy watching Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow zing each other on MSNBC but we're covering the convention right? Not just ourselves. Aren't we?
I was really ticked when MSNBC gave a pass to the speech of former Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA). There is a reason a man who served in congress for three decades as a Republic(an) got a prime time slot. This was quite possibly the most virulent anti-Bush and anti-McCain speech of the latter half of the evening. Here it is, in case you missed it, which you probably did (again thanks to cspanjunkie):
Now I am not saying that Jim Leach is the world's most inspiring speaker. Clearly not. But the man said what James Carville, Paul Begala and the entire liberal blogosphere told the Democrats they needed to say, over and over, for the convention to be a success. George Bush screwed up. John McCain is more of the same.
Nobody else seems to be delivering this message. Just the Republic(an). And, of course, the networks don't show it. Isn't that grand?
First, I think democrats need to learn:
what the message is
how to stay on it
Then, they need the Jim Leach's of the world to teach them how to do that. I will say this for the Republic(an)s, even when they are fighting with one another, they have a knack for staying on message.
Finally, we need a network other than just C-Span willing to show someone at the Democratic Convention who is attacking McCain and Bush.
Does banter about how Michelle Obama's speech is "scripted" between Nora O'Donnell and Pat Buchanan get better ratings? Perhaps it does. Maybe we are all just doomed.
The Republic(an)s will replace 2004's "9/11" with "POW" this year. And the networks will have the speaker on camera with every utterance of it.
I can so see the liberal bias. Wink, wink..nudge, nudge.
UPDATE
At least someone else noticed Jim Leach's speech, From Talking Points Memo: Did The Tree Fall?
Senator Edward M. Kennedy didn't wave from a luxury box. He didn't just give the taped speech he had prepared just in case. He, like a Kennedy, addressed the convention. In case you missed it, here it is courtesy of cspanjunkie:
And thus, the Kennedys continue to dominate the Democratic National Convention as they have for the last 52 years since Jack challenged Estes Kefauver for the Vice-Presidential nomination in 1956.
Chuck Todd had an interesting take on all the Clinton-Obama stuff swirling amongst the delegates throughout the evening. He said that in a few weeks all that people will remember will be Ted Kennedy's speech last night and Barack Obama's speech on Thursday. He added the caveat that if Obama loses the general election perhaps peoples memories may alter somewhat.
The point is that this convention is not about the Clintons. It will not be remembered for them. It is, rightly so, a great historic moment as the Democratic Party becomes the first major party to nominate a black man to be President of the United States.
It will be remembered for nominating the most inspiring figure that the Democratic Party has had since Robert Kennedy was felled 40 years ago.
It will be remembered for the heir of the Kennedy legacy passing the torch, with great enthusiasm, on to this new inspiring leader.
Ted Kennedy made this about the Democratic Party, Barack Obama and the people of the United States last night. It is no longer about the Clintons. It can't be. There is too much at stake.
Luke Russert, the son of the late, great political analyst Tim Russert has his first assignment in his new gig with NBC this week. Project number one: How do the young dems feel about "Ol'" Joe Biden as Barack Obama's choice for VP?
It seems even Luke was taken aback at the general enthusiasm for Biden, who has served in the senate since 1972, long before any of these people were born. I particularly liked my the 15 year old half way through the clip. Heck, that could have been me twenty odd years ago!
Interesting clip. Granted, this is from a network that, with the recent addition of Rachel Maddow to their lineup, seems intent on being as liberal as FOX is neo-conservative. Nevertheless, it's a pretty good story and not a bad start for the younger Mr. Russert to build on.
It's time to kick off the convention! What better way could there possibly be to kick off convention season than with a Jib-Jab production. I can't think of one. Therefore, I happily present "Time for Some Campaignin'":
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is in Denver for the Democratic National Convention that opens today. There are reports that, if he is healthy enough, he may make a public appearance at the convention. Whether that would involve saying something on the dais or merely waving to everyone from a luxury box at the Pepsi Center is unclear.
Does this have any effect on the fractiousness that seems to continue between the Obama and Clinton camps. Well..yes and no.
Heck, all democrats love Ted. He may occasionally be a overblown left wing nut job who has a checkered past but he is our overblown left wing nut job with a checkered past. He is as close to royalty as the democrats have. Everyone will cheer.
Still, the Clintonites have not forgotten that the Kennedy family, and Ted in particular, came out for Obama instead of Hillary.
Verdict: Who knows. We'll see how it all plays out. I think it would be great for Ted to make an appearance. I also think these Hillary supporters need to get their noses back in joint before they become the equivalent of the Ralph Nader supporters of 2000.
We won't know the success of this convention until November. This convention needs to unify the democrats in one common purpose: Making sure that Senator John McCain is not our next president. Convention bumps and all the other crap will not matter if that goal is not attained.
If Barack Obama is our next president it will have been a great convention. If John McCain comes from behind...well, this convention didn't do any better than John Kerry's "We shall not speak ill of G.W." convention four years ago.
After lord knows how many months of this stuff, it'll be great to finally start the last leg of this election. Have fun watching!
On the off chance you didn't get this video from the Obama campaign and are interested in seeing it here is Senator Joe Biden's "Hello" message to Senator Barack Obama's supporters as he joins the campaign:
Rush Limbaugh called for riots in Denver at the Democratic National Convention. Then he said he was "dreaming of riots", as opposed to "calling for riots" (don't want to be arrested for inciting riots now, do we?) Now he is backing off even that..
Here's some audio:
Of course, if it were Sam Seder, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz or Randi Rhodes (oh wait, she got fired for less) they would be suspended and possibly on their way to being fired. The right, whether it's Rush, Glen Beck or that whack job in San Francisco, Michael Savage, seems to be able to say whatever they wish and get away with it.
