Bill Clinton let it be known beforehand that he wasn't happy making his speech on national security night -- preferring to talk about the economy and, hence, his legacy. You could tell. National security rated only passing mentions.
He spent the majority of his speech wheeling through the things he obviously feels more comfortable talking about. The economy. Social Security. Global warming. Africa. Eradicating malaria and HIV/AIDS. Hillary. Becoming a debtor nation. Affordable health care. The war on unions. Income disparity. Tax policy. Lost jobs. Crime rates. The American Dream. Hope.
All of them good things. But things that don't move the needle on what is perceived as John McCain's greatest strength: keeping us safe.
Indeed, when Clinton talked about the nation's safety, he was perfunctory -- general when specifics were called for, despite the fact that the Bush years have given us so many tragic specifics to remind the American people of.
He didn't even try to make the case about all the ways McCain would make us less safe -- giving him a virtual free pass on this vital question.
Yes, the former president forcefully made the point that the charge of youth and inexperience being leveled at Obama was the same charge leveled at him in 1992. But he never made the case why Obama would be better at keeping us safe, beyond saying he would try diplomacy first.
So while it was good to have Clinton unequivocally voice his support for Obama and lend his considerable authority to the case that Obama is ready to lead, his speech felt like a squandered opportunity. A squandered opportunity that reinforced the notion that Democrats either don't know how to talk about -- or don't have the stomach for talking about -- national security. It felt very pre-9/11.
The first half of Biden's speech -- which was passionate, emotional, and very effective -- was centered on the economic concerns of working class Americans. Even when he turned his attention to his attack on McCain ("That's not change; that's more of the same"), the first issues he went after him on were his support of oil companies and the 19 times he voted against raising the minimum wage. And the first things he praised Obama for were his tax policy, and his plans to transform the economy, make college more affordable, bring down health care costs, put more cops on the street, protect social security, and fight for equal pay for women.
Just when I started to wonder if he too hadn't gotten the memo that this was national security night at the DNC, Biden finally went after McCain on this crucial issue.
He deemed Bush's foreign policy record an "abysmal failure" and indicted McCain as "complicit" in it. Most important, he repeatedly, effectively, and with great detail made the case that on the key national security issues of our time - including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan - "McCain was wrong and Obama was right."
It was a powerful indictment of McCain -- a heaping, close-to-9-minute serving of the red meat that has been sorely missing from the convention menu this week -- and effectively made the case that national security is actually John McCain's weakness.
That's a point Democrats need to relentlessly hammer home from now until Election Day. Even when it's not national security night.
For more Huffington Post coverage of the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
From the way the term is thrown around, I gather that we're all supposed to be losing sleep worryng about terrorists, who in own frame of reference constitute a threat somewhat more serious than volcanic eruptions but less than drunk drivers. I'm not surprised that none of our "leaders" want to get too specific.
Now - Reagan, GW Bush Sr. and GW Bush Jr. totoally trashed the economy....where to they get the gall to say they know how?
Without money folks you can't be secure.......face it!
It makes me wonder if people from the press had asked the exact same set of questions to all the different members (Clinton and Biden, for example) how different would the answers be? Which would be the one you wanted?
Not taking away from either as orators, either. It's good for the party to talk about multiple issues, rather than have them be a two or three trick pony ("we're thuh good guys, they're thuh bad guys" "Oil" "Terrorism" ) like the Republicans were, but I've got to wonder if THIS is the platform for that. They need to be there to take on the Republicans without pulling any punches and, whilst they should touch on those other issues here, they should maybe leave the meatier parts of those for a different (and, no two ways about it, NECESSARY)debate where it won't distract from the true issue here.
How can Bill, Hillary, and Biden all jump on the Obama train now when only days and weeks ago they were all saying he was a unaccomplished neophyte?
Were they lying then? Or are they lying now?
If anybody thinks that McCain would never have questioned Obama's experience if the Clintons hadn't done it, I've got some nice bottom land in the Alps to sell you.
Pres Clinton couldn't cover all topics. It was his choice to cover what he did. Sen Obama has to get himself elected and needs to make his case for his national security plans.
Also Bill Clinton provided us with an statement the essence of which will last till eternity:
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."
Wow! The wonder of language.
get out there and HELP BARAK/BIDEN GET ELECTED!!
NO WAY. NO HOW. NO McCAIN!!
YES WE CAN!!
Some realities for you...
EVERY great empire has fallen. The odds are 100% that the U.S. will crumble.
There have been several extinction level events (ELEs) over the course of history. The odds are 100% that the human race will be extinguished sometime in the future (unless we become space-faring and, even then, the odds are slim)
The odds of the U.S. facing a devastating terrorist attack was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. It was going to happen, period. It would have taken a facist police state of epic proportions to significantly drop the odds and, even then, it probably still would have happened.
This notion that attacks of this nature are indefinitely preventable is fantasy. As long as someone is swinging at you, the odds of you getting hit rise EXPONENTIALLY. Sad but true.
Bad news, as long as we position ourselves as opponents rather than find a way to address the ROOT issues of the current conflict, the odds of the U.S. encountering ANOTHER devastating terrorist attack is 100%.
For the rest of the neocons:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802851.html
Later.