Obama Goes On the Offense
No, Barack Obama did not land a knockout blow tonight. But he showed that he fully understands that the best defense is a good offense. After weeks of absorbing punishment from John McCain, Obama went on the attack.
Obama's decision to target McCain so closely was a risky strategy, but it paid off.
The contrast with past Democratic candidates such as John Kerry and Michael Dukakis could not have been starker. Obama showed that he does not conform to the image of the Democrat as wussbag by directly assailing McCain's foreign policy credentials -- specifically, his claim that he would "follow" Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell." But why just follow? As Obama made clear, he needs to be taken out.
The Obama campaign should keep concentrating its firepower on the Bush-McCain foreign policy record. McCain isn't simply a cheerleader for the Iraq War; he helped dream it up. If McCain does select Tom Ridge as his running mate, Ridge's lamentable record running the Homeland Security Department will offer a target-rich environment. Obviously, Joe Biden will take the lead in examining the McCain record in coming weeks, while Obama takes as high a road as he can.
But his performance tonight should silence the doubters about his candidacy. Obama came out fighting tonight. His fluid, tough, and forcefully delivered speech indicates that he will be a formidable and potentially devastating opponent in the fall presidential debates. Anyone who can't see that just doesn't get it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey Jacob,
Thanks from Atomic Records for another great post.
Last night's historic speach couldn't have been better. Obama's momentum will only get stronger after people digest the absurd choice of Sarah Palin.
This is a truly historical moment . The first female with an actual chance to be Vice President. No Ferarro had no chance . Sarah Palin is a brilliant choice. So far my wife and daughter who were Hillary supporters have said they will support McCain-Palin
Then it's safe to surmise that your wife and daughter weren't in support of the democratic platform at all, but rather were in support of the candidate? Apparently, if that candidate (McCain) proves to be in opposition to most women issues it doesn't matter? Sounds sexist and rather poorly thought out to me!
BINBaldwin?? Another tr0ll in Dem's clothing, huh? Only, this disguise is rather transparent.
If it is true that your wife and daughter were Hillary Clinton supporters, then they're part of the Limpball's "Op. Chaos" and only wanted to vote for Hillary knowing she was a weaker candidate against the Rove-Repub machine than Obama (and that's proven to be true). They would've been good Stepfords and turned around to vote for McCain / Whoever no matter what AND for an easy WH win then.
Good thing our youth saved us from that disaster by coming out in DROVES for Obama putting him over the top (they're not brainwashed by corporate media like most Americans are).
Sarah Palin is a weak VP candidate and choosing her just annihilated McCain's baseless "experience" attacks on Obama, didn't it? She's even greener than Obama OR John Edwards, for that matter AND she's already being investigated for corruption! NO WAY is she reader to step in should McCain drop out. NO WAY.
Great choice for the Dems there, McCain! Thanks so much!
Obama / Biden '08
Now there's progress - support a woman just because she's a woman. Never mind her anti-woman policies. How silly.
LOL.... so the Democrats are progressive? Let see exploit women with big business (Planned parenthood) that makes over $900 million dollars off the exploitation of women and you are considered progressive..... unbelievable....
OK -- so your wife and daughter want a female vice president who is a rabid anti-abortion advocate, who has about 2 years experience in government and nowhere near the educational or other accomplishments of Obama and Biden, who is a dedicated social conservative with many of the prejudices that go with that, and who has recently been embroiled in a scandal about violating the high ethics bar she set (the main reason she was elected, in a state riddled with corruption)?
Are they actually feminists, who care about issues that will improve women's lives? Or are they just arch-conservatives, pretending to have been Hillary supporters?
Ok, that is sad. So technically they supported Hillary just because she is a woman and will do the same for Palin... and people wonder why our country is soooo screwed up. I guess nowadays it is so passe to get informed from outside sources in order to make a good decision. Why don't we just resort to picking our government like kids pick teammates in a dodgeball game?
..the same Grand Ol' Party rednecks that won't vote for Obama because he's black.
Are you saying that most blacks don't support Obama for the simple reason that he is Black? Mind you I'm a black male and I know that they do..... ask any black person what the policies Obama stands for and they cannot name them.... oh yes CHANGE! Which means what ?
"No, Barack Obama did not land a knockout blow tonight."
Pray tell, what would a knockout blow have been?
First, let me say that I am a partisan Democrat. As such, I was very happy to see Obama come out swinging and forcefully take on John McCain in his supposed stronghold: foreign policy. Obama also articulated his vision of a government that works for people and not the special interests. Sure, it may not be new to attack your opponent, but if the Republicans thought they had another stereotypical "weak liberal" to bash, they now know they have another think coming! Hooray for Obama! The new politician that he is is a strong Democrate unafraid to hit the Republicans and their attack dogs hard. He is a fighting Democrat like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson. Bravo!
I agree that those who don't get why he'll be a GREAT President just don't get it. Too much of the commentary by the punditry dissmisses his speech making ability as if it's some sort of inconsequential hat trick. It is, instead, the hallmark of a brilliant mind and of a man who will be able to persuade the American public to stand behind his initiatives and the rest of the world to stand behind the US. Our greatest presidents--Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR--all had that gift for persuasive language. We shouldn't be discounting it as a HUGE plus for a president.
The "new" kind of politician resorted to "old" style promise them everything tactics. Hopefully, most of us moderate Americans are able to realize when something sounds too good to be true, it always is.
Build infrastructure, new education programs for kids, expand the military, government healthcare for all, jobs for everyone (even though unemployment is already below the average of the last 4 decades), paid leave to take care of loved ones, his talking ability will convince Iran to stop seeking the bomb and cow down Russian aggression.
And you liberals buy this load of bs hook, line, and sinker.
Wake up. Obama is not a "new" kind ofpolitician. He's an "old school" liberal who will promise anything to get elected.
So what do you propose? What isn't 'too good to be true,' something that is acceptable to a 'moderate American.' I take it that you are either quite satisified with the status quo. Or have you become resigned to accepting the problems that plague our society, that there really is nothing that can be done, no real progress that can be made? Either way, explain yourself.
Riverhippie, I suppose you think we should just relax and let the Republicans take the whole damn country down the "river" too. Nothing is "too good to be true" for Americans. We proved that when we ended slavery in America. We proved that when we went to the moon. We proved that when we beat polio, and other diseases. We proved that when we ended segregation in the south. We proved that when we nominated a black man to lead a major party in a presidential election. It is You that must wake up and catch the wave of progression that is moving us toward the 21st century!
I have a house, a Job (teaching composition at a local university -- non-tenured), and a family, so -- yes -- I'm not terribly upset about the state of the economy.
If you think Obama will solve the problems that plague our society (even though you didn't elaborate on these problems), you are kidding yourself.
Am I happy about the state of this country? well... yes.
Can we improve? yes.
Do we need to resort to socialism? no.
If Obama raises taxes on corporations will it result in lost jobs and higher prices? yes.
Higher taxes on the wealthy and big business will be passed down to us common folk -- count on it.
Will socialized health care tank the economy? yes.
I lost a cousin in Iraq in 2004. My nephew has served two tours as a marine. If Bush had listened to Obama and pulled out when sectarian violence threated to turn into civil war, their sacrifices would have been for naught.
Obama said the Iraqis were addicted to the teat of U.S. military power and would never stand up for themselves as long as we continued a stay the course policy. he wanted to impose a crongressionally mandated withdrawl no matter what the consequences.
The Iraqis NEGOTIATING a U.S. combat force drawdown and then withdrawl proves Bush right and Obama wrong.
Staying the course was the right thing to do
I propose that Obama not lie about cutting taxes AND delivering all those social programs he's promised. Everyone knows he can't do both which means he's one of those politicans who will say anything to get elected. Further, the Obama camp's ungracious response to McCain's choice for VP, points up their anxiety. Palin is a very likeable candidate and they're worried. They should be. Middle America is tired of the Obama/Biden Hollywood show they're running. Palin is a breath of fresh air.
Unemployment is DOWN? What are you talking about???? Median income has fallen for the middle, and concentrated wealth is up. Jobs are fleeing at all-time rates. Where ARE you getting your data?
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru
Here are the unemployment statistics from 1969 on.
What is your definition of a liberal, and a moderate American?
Look at the gadgets in use in your house; where are most of them made? Check your pay raise at the beginning of the new year; check your bill at the gas pump. Tell me you don't need change.
HIPPIE??!!??!! I seriously doubt it...
This is the sad state the alot of people are in. Things are bad and anyone promising to change them for the better has to be lying. Stop taking the spoon fed medicine that the GOP is handing you. Wake up and realize that change has to come from somewhere and the hope for a better tomorrow is not a waste of time or effort.
Reasonably attacking the GOP and GOP policies without attacking McCain personally should be rather easy. For almost three decades we've experienced first hand failed GOP policies and the only period in the past 30 where we have had peace and prosperity has been under a Democratic president but even then we had myriad problems caused by Republicans. In fact, there are so many avenues for attacking Republicans one hardly knows where to begin. I'd suggest starting with Constitutional issues and their chipping away at the Bill or Rights because those rights are so fundamental to what makes America unique. Corruption and cronyism, creeping fascism, failed economic and foreign policies... Author John Dean has written three books about these and they are filled with well documented and reasoned arguments why the GOP not only must be kicked out of power but why the party doesn't deserve to survive as a political entity. Unfortunately, it remains to be see whether real Conservatives have the ability to clean out their own house.
We have before us one of the greatest American orators and brilliant minds of our entire history against the back drop of one of the worst president's in our history and a vast majority of Americans still don't get it. I think Obama will be elected only because the Democrats are energized and will out-vote those that oppose him. Even if he doesn't get elected; rest assured that this is not over. The really big picture is the Movement that Obama started. The organization will continue whether he gets elected or not. He has the better plan for ALL Americans and I think History will bear that out. If you are an OBAMA supporter but not volunteering time for the campaign to get folks in your city registerd to vote; you need to contact an Obama HQ near you and get going. We don't have much time.
OBAMA for President!
I agree. Something has started here in the US. I am excited to see where this goes and I hold onto the idea that hope for a better tomorrow is something worth fighting for. Get ready democrats....its going to be a battle for the next 67 days. Nothing short then the future of America is at stake!
Obama/Biden '08
Unfortunately, his speech last night no longer matters. Now that McCain has picked Sarah Palin as his VP, the race has shifted. Even Geraldine Ferraro called it a smart choice on TV just minutes ago. I gotta say, it's made me nervous.
And we're stuck with Biden. [grrrrrrrrrrrr]
Picking Sarah Palin, while initially may seem smart, could be a serious liability for McCain. Number one, Sarah Palin is under investigation for corruption. Number two, McCain risks alienating evangelical conservatives and those with patriarchal values. And Three, VP choices tend to have little impact in the long run. Four, HRC supporters aren't stupid. Just because McCain picked a woman, HRC's supporters will see it for what it is - empty. They know that Obama still represents their values far more than mad mac does, regardless of who his VP is.
Flagged as a Socialist Distortion. Sarah Palin has fought against corruption throughout her public life and is NOT under any kind of investigation.
You are only partly right-I am sure there are a good percentage of Hillary supporters out there who will support Palin because she's a woman, simply because they are unaware of McCain's positions on issues. Its unfortunate that such people are allowed to vote but there it is. In my opinion people should be given a handout on candidates' positions on top 10 issues, so that they atleast know what they're doing.
Who is this Palin person? One year as governor after a mayoral position? You gotta be kidding. What this says to me is two things: 1) they want someone no one knows because there's so much to attack about the other potentials; and 2) they're in bed with Alaska over the drilling thing. Maybe this is some kind of tit for tat? Otherwise, I think it's stupid beyond belief. No one who wanted Hillary is going to vote for McCain because he chose a woman -- any woman.
Sarah Palin certainly seems like a much better pick than Romney, but I wonder how the right-wing Repubs, who McCain is still trying to unify, will view her. The main advantage of this pick for the Dems is that it totally shatters the argument that Obama isn't experienced enough to keep the nation safe. If a 40-something woman with no military experience & no foreign policy experience is the best pick to take over as president if something should happen to the 72-year old cancer survivor at the top of the ticket then Obama is at least as qualified to be commander in chief!
As a side note, since this is at least in part an effort to attract more disaffected Hillary supporters, it offers her an even more important role in this election. As a pragmatic politician, I'd say that the fee for her services to the Obama campaign just went up.
Well maybe Palin can get that bridge to nowhere built that Stevens started. What better symbolism for the repub party than a bridge to nowhere.
nice try...but regarding Palin:
When Scarborough (who is sort of like Hannity-lite) heard the rumor this morning he immediately dismissed it as too absurd to be true - a 44 year old in Alaska with a journalism degree from University of Idaho who took office 21 months ago is going to be 2nd in line to be the leader of the free world? Really? Really? REALLY?!?!
Well first let me make this clear, I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning. I was also impressed by the speech he made, however I am still wondering if it seeped into the heart of the majority of Americans and if it did, how long it would stay there?
I think what he has managed to do was reunite most democrats. However his punches to McCain need to be amped up if he wants to remain standing tall in November.
The Republican convention is coming up, and they have already cooked up new attacks on Obama. They are going to act as if what Obama said was expected, say it was disappointing, light, blah blah blah. As soon as his speech was over, he already had GOP critics saying he was simply reacting to their attack. Reactive, not proactive. That can be a problematic image. Obama should not let up from here on, and should lead the attacks and hammer them relentlessly, not simply take them.
I want to see him debate McCain on issues and sw the stark differences between heir approaches. I believe Obama can run circles around McCain, if he only sets his heart and mind to do it as he has shown yesterday.
Never mind the GOP;they are in panic mode! A Romney supporter conceded on CNN he was happy they were not leading the fight against O*bama because of his firing power... O*bama can hit a winner and he did just that last night!
I have said all along that the Repukelicans (and some Democrats) have underestimated Obama's toughness.Just because a man doesn't pump his fist and say "Bring it on!" and "Dead or alive!" and strut around a carrier deck in a codpiece doesn't mean he's a wuss -- in fact, just the opposite. A real man -- a man with courage and self-confidence -- doesn't need these childish macho displays.
Teddy Roosevelt agrees. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Barack Obama is no Teddy Roosevelt.
Excellent.
The Democrats have underestimated John McCain.
I think that Obama will have to rely on 2 factors to beat McCain & the Repubs. 1) That his top strategists are at least a little smarter & more perceptive than his opponents are (probably the main reason he was able to defeat HRC for the nomination), & 2) that he can be more adaptable than McCain throughout all the twists & turns of this election. At this point, McCain still hasn't figured out how to seem comfortable & genuine in anything other than a town hall meeting, and if Obama has found a way to blunt the Repubs' current crop of negative attacks, McCain's campaign will essentially have to "grow a new leg." Obama still has to find a way to reach more of the constituencies that mistrust him, and he has to become much more effective & consistent in debates & other unscripted venues (where he tends to lapse into his Harvard educated constitutional law teacher persona -- one which makes him seem arrogant & "elitist" to too many people).
With his speech last night, Obama showed a brilliant, pitch-perfect alteration & refinement of his message & his delivery. At least temporarily, he's thrown the Repubs back on the defensive. I just hope he can be the first Dem since Bill Clinton to know how to keep them there!
I believe that Obama is the nominee not so much because he did anything right but because Clinton's campaign was so poorly managed. Much of the blame for her second place finish should be laid at the feet of her over paid consultants. Obama ran a near flawless campaign and he should be commended for that. In the general election, Obama's main challenge is going to be to win over the hearts and minds of the mainstream media to reach constituencies he has yet to affect. I think the media will be less of a factor that it was in 2000 and 2004 because of the many alternatives that now exist but the MSM remains a force to be reckoned with and whose influence is often extremely subtle, so subtle that many people may hardly recognize what's being reported represents little more than Republican propaganda.
If even Pat Buchanan loved this speech - said it was the best EVER in his lifetime - then maybe the MSM will begin to review their bias.
While he didn't exactly spell it out last night, I believe Obama is getting ready to re-introduce Americans to the concept of "taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." In other words, adult-talk to adults instead of the GOP budget-busting tax-cuts-forever-and-go-shopping no-matter-what ... even as our bridges, levies and other basic infrastructures collapse.
I believe Obama will try to return balance to the tax system, which means the rich and powerful will return to paying their fair share, instead of giving them tax cuts at the expense of the basic things required to sustain an America that provides a basis for keeping us competitive and prosperous.
Reagan's old mantra as government being bad and incompetent was novel and perhaps fitting when he said them. But, the GOP has taken this mantra and extended it to the point of seriously undercutting America's infrastructure and global competitiveness. The same for Bush's wanton tax cuts while waging a supposedly historic "war on terror."
After six years of the GOP in control of the White House and Congress, it became apparent that the GOP talk of responsible and lean government was hollow.
It's time to get someone into the White House who is truly fiscally prudent while at the same time understanding that certain functions of government are essential and must be paid for with taxes.
We can't keep going on pretending that we can have everything for nothing.
Wouldn't it be great if we had leaders who actually talked honestly about taxes! Like taxes are necessary in order to pay for those things everyone wants. Of course, don't count on the GOP playing along... ever. Why should citizens pay taxes when we can get out source to businesses or get them to pay voluntarily. The correct response should be that we've tried t hat approach for almost 30 years and it doesn't work and as Obama pointed out that its insane to keep trying the same approaches repeatedly expecting a different outcome. A think a better model to follow would be the tax structure of the 1950s as long as society doesn't seek to return to the social mores of that period (unlikely). One of the striking things about the Democratic convention was its obvious multiracialism and multiculturalism. America has indeed become a society of mixed cultures, races and religions, and, although white Christians remains the largest single constituency it has almost reached the point where the combined non-white population exceeds whites, which to my mind indicates that we can not turn the clock back socially. We can and should re-examine our entire economic and tax structure because it has serious, deeply institutionalized problems.
I agree. The Republican mantra of 'no new taxes' or 'no tax increases' borders on the idiotic. What if you were a truck driver and said "I'll never drive faster than 40 MPH, ever! It's just wrong!" Sometimes you need to drive fast, sometimes you need to drive slow.
We don't need a platform of tax increases. We don't need a platform of tax cuts. We need a platform of tax WISDOM.
Uhh... well... you need to check your facts ""After six years of the GOP in control of the White House and Congress," Excactly what six years are you speaking of? The Democrats controlled the senate during Bush's first term, lost it in '04 and got it back in '06. Thus, Bush had a GOP controlled Congress for two of his eight years in office.
Remember, Tom Daschele was Senate Majority leader when the Democrats passed the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution.
Hey, riverhippie -- I'll have to take issue with your view that the Repuglies controlled Congress for only two years. They have clearly been able to hamstring the D's razor-thin margin of the last two years.
Define fair share, would you?
He didn't spell it out because he knows if he said that he was really planning to raise eveyones' taxes to pay for his socialist agenda it would spell his doom.
He actually said he was going to lower taxes for 95% of taxpaying Americans. He would raise taxes for the wealthy and lower taxes for the poor and middle class. I guess you decided not to hear that part. Understandable.
There is a fundamental problem in our society fostered by the policies of the Republican party over the past 30 years. Those policies have made the rich richer, the poor poorer and the middle class smaller. Such a situation increases the instability in a society. It's what happened right before the Great Depression.
We need government policies that help move that money back into the middle class. In this case it's a matter of quality AND quantity -- making life better for more people.
Government does not have to do anything unfair to make this happen. Quite the opposite, revise the tax code to be MORE fair and a lot of this problem will go away. Those who complain are typically those with the most to lose.
Riverhippie - Please try to keep up with the group... You have NOT been paying attention. Taxes will be LESS for the lower 95%. I don't know about you, but I'm in that group.
It was always my hope that Obama was keeping his powder dry, waiting for just the right moment to launch a devastating counterattack. As it has eventuated that was exactly the case. It would seem that he has been biding his time, waiting for the Republican attack line to fully develop and expose itself. And now that the Republicans have shown their hand, Obama is opening up all his guns to blow the rickety Republican talking points to pieces. Obama has now clearly demonstrated that is both wise and tough.
AMEN! i have always had a lot of confidence in the long-term strategy of the obama camp. Nights like last night justify it. They don't worry about the day to day fluctuations... they worry about november!
Republicans don't care which Republican wins so long as they don't lose some of the money and have to actually help pay down the 3 trillion dollar national debt that Bush, Cheney, and Rove have run up. As far as t hey're contention that the market should handle everything and the government nothing, that's fine until the market (corporations, lobbyists, and special interests) has total control of the government as they do now and have done under the Republicans. Time for a change in Washington!
I never see Democrats as wussbags. Too liberal (this time around) for sure, but not wussbags. Obama has always gone on the attack - this nothing new in my view !!!!!
I don't think they were wussbags, either. And I don't think they were too liberal. Liberals are just too principled to stoop to the levels conservatives stoop to all the time. Attacking has always had the potential to backfire and create sympathy for the attacked. In recent years that dynamic has changed, and the mean-spirited tactics of Rove and co. have been working. Politicians take notice, and they feel that's the only way to win. Obama is trying to turn that around, and it's very, very tough to win if you don't stoop to it. He is attacking, but he is telling the truth, unlike McCain. No lies, no innuendos, nothing personal. (The quips about the houses are relevant to McCain's attempts to position himself as "one of us," not personal attacks.) Substance. Class. Confidence, not arrogance. Character, not martyrdom (i.e., POW, POW, POW, ad nauseum).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
